Sitting of 16 July 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HOUNSLOW CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
  GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY COMPANY BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
  ELY OUSE-ESSEX WATER BILL [Lords]
  To be considered on Monday next at Seven o'clock.
  MEDWAY WATER (BEWL BRIDGE RESER VOIR) BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  FOREMEN AND STAFF MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCIETY (APPLICATION OF RULES) ETC. (No. 2) BILL.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.
  SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES BILL [Lords] (by Order)
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next at Seven o'clock.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOSPITALS

    Stanmer Park Hospital Scheme (Press Statement)
    Mr. Maddanasked the Minister of Health whether the statement made by an official of his Department to the
    1224
    Brighton Evening Argus and published on 4th April, 1968, that the Stanmer Park hospital scheme put forward by the Brighton consultants two years ago was very similar in concept to the hospitals now to be built at Bury St. Edmunds and Frimley, was made with his authority; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the full text of the statement made on my behalf to the newspaper in question. It does not bear the interpretation placed upon it by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Maddan: I shall read that with a great deal of interest, but, from the text which I have read, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, by circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he is merely creating a smokescreen behind which to hide. Is this just one more example of Socialist Ministers refusing to admit their errors?
    Mr. Robinson: The only reason for circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT is to save the time of the House. The similarity referred to was an architectural similarity, which is very different from a similarity of concept.
    The text is as follows:
    "There are architectural similarities between the Brighton doctors' concept and the Frimley and Bury St. Edmunds projects. It is not claimed that the design is unique. It is largely a logical development from earlier Ministry-sponsored projects at Kingston, Walton, South Cheshire, Eastburn and Greenwich. They are hospitals where space is intensively used.
    But the concept differs from the Brighton concept in that it aims at extensively integrating the work of the hospital with that of local authorities and general practitioners."

    Psychiatric Hospitals (Indigent Patients)
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Minister of Health what grants and facilities he has made available to regional hospital boards to enable them to act in accordance with Her Majesty's Government's Circular (67) 70 and to provide reasonable pocket money to indigent patients in psychiatric hospitals in line with amounts paid by the Supplementary Benefits Commission to patients in general hospitals.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The cost is met from the general financial allocations to

    1225
    hospital authorities. These are increased to take account of increases in the maximum pocket money rate for these patients whenever this is adjusted following an increase in the rate paid by the Supplementary Benefits Commission to patients in other hospitals.
    Mr. Moonman: In placing pyschiatric patients on an equal footing with general patients, which is a move that is welcomed on this side of the House, would my hon. Friend state what regional boards are expected to do to provide the increased pocket money without Ministry help? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in one instance alone, the regional board has now to foot a bill of £13,500?
    Mr. Robinson: I have sent circulars to regional boards on this matter. The maximum weekly amount was increased in October, 1967, in line with an increase in Supplementary Benefits Commission rates, and a special allocation which will cost about £200,000 in a full year will be made to cover the extra cost of this.

    Adela Shaw Orthopaedic Hospital, Kirkbymoorside
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Health whether he is now satisfied that the Leeds Regional Hospital Board carried out the procedure laid down in Ministry circulars in formulating their proposals in respect of the Adela Shaw Orthopaedic Hospital, Kirkbymoorside; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Yes, Sir. The Board is continuing to consult local interests and has not yet submitted formal proposals to me.
    Mr. Turton: Should not the procedure be revised if, as in this case, the house committee of the hospital and the local authorities, including the medical officers of health, do not learn of a proposal until the staff are warned of an impending closure? Is this not extremely damaging for management and the morale of the staff?
    Mr. Robinson: My information is that the board is considering the future of this hospital in relation to plans to concentrate and develop facilities in Scarborough. Local consultations are proceeding, and the board has not yet decided what proposals to put forward. That is my information.

    Hospital Building Supervisors
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Health what action he has taken to reassess the status of hospital building supervisors within the National Health Service.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): In conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland my right hon. Friend has appointed a Committee to review the present arrangements for the conduct of hospital building maintenance and minor capital works, and this review will cover the work at present done by hospital building supervisors and their responsibilities and qualifications. I am sending my hon. Friend details of the membership and scope of the Committee.
    Mr. Judd: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Committee is taking a very long time to report, and that if we are to prevent the expensive deterioration of essential buildings urgent action is necessary?
    Mr. Snow: My hon. Friend should know that the Committee has only just been appointed, and will hold its first meeting on 25th July. However, if he is concerned about salary structure, there are certain great advantages already in train for this class of staff.

    Hospital Accommodation (Small Rooms)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Health what cost estimates have been prepared by his Department in connection with an increase in the availability of single rooms, and two- and three-bedded rooms in hospitals under the National Health Service; and what plans he has for increasing the proportion of smaller rooms in hospitals.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Existing guidance to hospital boards on new building recommends that 20 per cent. of beds in acute wards should be provided in single rooms. This percentage is raised to 40 in children's wards. Two- and three-bedded rooms are not recommended. I have no plans for increasing these proportions.
    Mr. Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this move forward is

    1227
    welcome, but that now that even the Army is moving towards offering small rooms to other ranks rather than the barrack room it is a matter of urgency that the large ward idea should disappear, and that the other ranks in the hospitals—the National Health Service patients—should be offered this type of private accommodation?
    Mr. Robinson: I certainly think that large wards are probably a thing of the past. Multi-bed bays or rooms should, in our view, contain four to eight beds. We regard six as the optimum number. But there is plenty of evidence that by no means all hospital patients want to be in single rooms. I have asked for a survey to be made to ascertain the wishes generally of patients.

    Services and Treatment (Cost)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Health if he will state the latest available comparable differences in cost per bed per week between the most expensive and the least expensive hospitals, assuming that the type and quality of care is approximately the same in each.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Figures of cost per patient week even for hospitals of similar types are not directly comparable, as the range of services and treatment provided vary from hospital to hospital. Costs are also influenced by such factors as the availability of staff, and the size, age and condition of buildings.
    Mr. Fisher: Could the right hon. Gentleman give a rough estimate of the differences that he can compute? Does he agree that they are at least partly due to the non-competitive environment in the National Health Service? Can any steps be taken to reduce the differences in the least efficient hospitals and make them more efficient?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by a "non-competitive environment". A multiplicity of factors accounts for differences in cost per patient week in hospitals whose functions are broadly similar. I am constantly urging hospital authorities to bring about more efficient use of beds, and we have achieved a good deal of progress here. I do not think that any
    1228
    figure I could quote in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question would be anything but misleading.

    Patients (Length of Stay)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Health if he will state the latest available differences between individual hospitals in the length of stay in hospital after comparable operations.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I regret that this information is not available centrally.
    Mr. Fisher: Has the Minister read a study in the Lancet showing that, for instance, in the case of a hernia operation discharge after one day seems quite as satisfactory as after six days? If that is so, can he estimate the annual extra cost to the National Health Service of often unnecessarily long hospitalisation?
    Mr. Robinson: The extra cost is considerable, but these are clinical decisions. It is not for the Minister to tell doctors how long their patients should stay in hospital. But I call their attention to the savings that can be achieved if they find themselves able to discharge their patients earlier.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Does the Minister agree that there is a very strong argument for something like the medical audit such as is done in the American hospitals?
    Mr. Robinson: There are advantages and disadvantages in a medical audit, but I am always ready to consider any suggestion by the right hon. Gentleman.

    Hospitals (Voluntary Service)
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Minister of Health if he will outline the scope of the voluntary service in National Health Service hospitals; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. K. Robinson: It covers numerous activities. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular issued to hospital authorities listing some of these. It is my policy to encourage such service to the full.
    Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is ample opportunity for voluntary service in the N.H.S., and that organisations coming forward are

    1229
    certain to be encouraged by hospital management committees?
    Mr. Robinson: I completely endorse what my hon. Friend says. All the major voluntary organisations are in touch with my Department in various ways, which willingly gives any help it can.

    National Hospital Service Reserve
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Minister of Health what arrangements he has made for the former National Hospital Service Reserve (Nursing Reserve) to continue its services to hospitals within the National Health Service.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The National Hospital Service Reserve constituted under the provisions of the Civil Defence Act, 1948, will be discontinued as from 1st August, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are suggesting that hospital authorities should consider offering volunteers opportunities to help hospitals in peace time in a reserve of the same name organised on a local basis. We are asking hospital authorities to convey to all who are now giving nursing service in the reserve our thanks and those of the nation for the time and effort they have so readily given to their work. We also thank the St. John Ambulance Association and Brigade, the British Red Cross Society and the St. Andrew's Ambulance Association who have assisted greatly in the organisation and training of the reserve.
    Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his tribute to the work of the Nursing Reserve will be very much appreciated, and that I endorse his remarks? Will he be a little more explicit about local arrangements? What are the financial arrangements for volunteers? Have they to buy their uniforms, or will assistance be given to the management committees to avoid drawing on hospital funds?
    Mr. Robinson: A circular to hospital authorities giving guidance on ways in which the reserve might be continued as a peace-time hospital reserve will be issued within about a week, and I ask my hon. Friend to await the issue of that circular.

    Hospital Service (Qualified Tutors)
    Mrs. Knightasked the Minister of Health what plans he has for overcoming the present general shortage af qualified tutors in the hospital service.
    Mr. Snow: I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Will Owen).—[Vol. 768, c. 165–6.]
    Mrs. Knight: Has the hon. Gentleman reached any conclusion about the possibility of coming to some agreement on the system whereby teachers are paid more to teach in colleges of further education than in teaching hospitals?
    Mr. Snow: Not yet, and it would be wrong to pre-empt the findings of the Whitley Council concerned, but its recommendations, if accepted only in part, and I am not certain to what extent they will be accepted, should very considerably improve the salary structure.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that he will not get sister tutors or anybody else in the nursing service unless he is willing to pay the rate for the job?
    Mr. Snow: I am not absolutely certain that I should accept advice from the hon. Gentleman in this matter, but he will know that one of the factors involved here is maldistribution. The hon. Gentleman is right about inadequacies in the salary structure. These are matters which we hope will be resolved by the findings of the Whitley Council.

    Senior Nursing Staff (Salmon Report)
    Dr. Winstanleyasked the Minister of Health if he will announce the date he has set for the complete implementation of the Salmon proposals.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I am consulting regional hospital boards on what they would consider practicable.

    Fulham Hospital (Sterile Unit)
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Minister of Health whether it is possible to treat male patients at the sterile unit

    1231
    which was opened at Fulham Hospital in 1964; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir, 12 male patients have so far been treated in the sterile unit at Fulham.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information, but is he aware that Dr. Bagshawe and his team are doing brilliant and unique work on cancer in this unit, which brings great credit throughout the world not only to the National Health Service, but to Britain? Does he agree that it should continue to receive every help, including assistance from charitable trusts in this vital work?
    Mr. Snow: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right in his observations about this unit. It will not suffer from lack of monetary support from the National Health Service which at present is providing four-fifths of the budget.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Nurses and Midwives (National Board for Prices and Incomes Report)
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that following the recent salary increases for nurses and adjustments in the charges for living-in staff, some first year student nurses now receive £1 less per month than they received before the increases; and what has been the result of the National Board for Prices and Incomes re-examination of the matter.
    Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir; the second part of the Question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Dance: This is quite disgraceful. Does the Minister realise that I have two cases bearing out what is in the Question? Does he now know why he has great difficulty in recruiting people to this very honourable profession?
    Mr. Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman has cases, he might have been better advised to send them to me. The fact is that the training allowances increased by exactly the same proportion as the board and lodging charges, and, unless something very strange happened in one very exceptional week, this could not
    1232
    arise. I should be glad to look into the cases.
    Mr. Molloy: I appreciate that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have very little cause to complain about nurses' pay because they did nothing about it when they were in office, but would my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need to look at this whole question, from the point of view not only of the last award, but some of the points made in the last debate?
    Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the Whitley Council will note everything said in the last debate. Nurses' pay has been considered objectively and independently by the Prices and Incomes Board. This is the first time that this has happened for a very long time.
    Mr. Maurice MacmillanWould not the Minister accept that, despite that objective consideration, a number of student nurses are receiving training and pay which, taken together, mean that they are being used as cheap labour in hospitals?
    Mr. Robinson: No. These are training allowances. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that.
    Mrs. Knightasked the Minister of Health if he has studied the report of the Royal College of Nursing, a copy of which is in his possession, as to the serious implications for nursing education of Report No. 60 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Health what discussions he has had with the nurses and midwives concerning the recommendations about training in Report No. 60 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the Pay of Nurses and Midwives in the National Health Service.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I have studied the Royal College report and met, at its request, representatives of nursing education. There have also been informal discussions between officers of my Department and interested groups. I shall shortly be consulting the appropriate bodies about the Board's recommendations.
    Mrs. Knight: As the nurses take an almost completely opposite view in every particular to Report No. 60 on the question of nursing education, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman which general light he intends to be illuminated by—the nurses or the Board?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not accept what the hon. Lady says. I agree that some of the recommendations about training have caused disturbance in the profession. As I said during the debate on 1st July, I do not intend to act hastily on them, and there will be proper consultation with the service and with the profession.
    Mr. Fortescue: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what proposals he has for a greater degree of integration between the training of student nurses and the training of pupil nurses as recommended by the Board?
    Mr. Robinson: That is very much a matter for the professional bodies concerned whom I shall be consulting about this and other recommendations in the Board's Report.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give any idea of the time-scale which he has in mind before these problems are resolved.
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I am anxious to make progress but these are important matters and they should not be rushed.
    Dr. Winstanleyasked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the setting up of a National Nursing Management Council as recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I am considering this recommendation.
    Dr. Winstanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that doubt and uncertainty about these matters is leading to a serious degree of resentment and frustration in the nursing profession? Will he endeavour to give the matter special attention so that he can give speedy answers to this question and end this uncertainty among nurses?
    Mr. Robinson: I have always supported measures to improve management efficiency in the hospital service, not only
    1234
    on the nursing side. This is a matter for constant attention, and hospital authorities are fully aware of its importance. Certainly we shall not drag our feet in considering these recommendations.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend be a little bolder and less cautious in the implementation of Salmon and the other recommendations before him and do something about a radical reorganisation including progressive patient care and go faster than putting just two prototypes of the Salmon Report in each regional board area?
    Mr. Robinson: This is only a beginning, and a beginning which was agreed with the profession when the Salmon Report was first considered. In the light of the Prices and Incomes Board, we are working out ways to speed up its implementation of the Salmon Report.
    Mr. Deanasked the Minister of Health what discussions he has had with nurses and midwives concerning the recommendations about management in the Report No. 60 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the Pay of Nurses and Midwives in the National Health Service.
    Mr. K. Robinson: There have been some informal discussions between officers of my Department and interested groups. I shall shortly be consulting the appropriate bodies about the Board's recommendations.
    Mr. Dean: Will the right hon. Gentleman do this speedily? Does he recognise that there is a real danger that as the salary structure is operating it will cause confusion within the nursing service?
    Mr. Robinson: I accept that it is desirable to plan the completion of the implementation of the recommendations of the Salmon Committee, and I am consulting hospital authorities about a workable timetable. Whether it is desirable at this stage to set out a precise target date, as the Board recommended, I am not fully convinced.
    Mr. Hollandasked the Minister of Health whether he will now give an undertaking that no nurse will be financially worse off as a result of action taken following the Report No. 60 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes

    1235
    on the Pay of Nurses and Midwives in the National Health Service.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Some of the Board's recommendations are still under negotiation in the Whitley Council, but it seems unlikely that anyone working the same hours in the same post could be worse off as a result of agreements reached. Changes recommended in special duty allowances, though estimated to cost initially about £8 million a year, would have led to reduction in pay for some nurses, but the Whitley Council, after consulting the Board, has agreed that those hitherto eligible for these allowances may opt to continue to be paid on the present basis while in their present posts, and that the additional cost of this should be offset by postponing the operative date from 1st April to 1st May.
    Mr. Holland: In order to encourage part-time nurses who are willing to work three or four night duties a week, or to work on Sundays, will the right hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that they will not suffer as a result? Does he not agree that every encouragement should be given to them?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes. We can be satisfied that so long as they stay in the same post at the same hospital they will not suffer. An anomaly that we have now put right was one of the unforeseen consequences of the Prices and Incomes Board's Report.
    Dame Irene Ward: With all the anomalies and all the alterations which have to be made and considered over the whole scale of the nursing profession, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is thoroughly satisfied that he gave proper consideration to all the proposals put forward by the nursing profession? Can he say whether, in considering the problems of the nurses, he pays more attention to those who can represent the nurses or to the civil servants in his Department, who have never been particularly good about dealing with the requirements of the nursing profession?
    Mr. Robinson: First, I utterly reject the last part of the hon. Lady's suggestion and the reflection that it makes upon my advisers, whom she well knows are not in a position to answer for themselves. I can assure her that in my view the
    1236
    Prices and Incomes Board gave full weight to the evidence it received on nurses' pay and conditions from the representatives of the nurses themselves.

    Family Planning Act
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Health whether on the basis of the reports he has now received from local authorities, he is satisfied with their response to the Family Planning Act; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. K. Robinson: My impression from these reports is that authorities are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of family planning as a preventive health measure and that they have generally made a good beginning on what must necessarily be a long-term development.
    Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nearly 80 authorities have done nothing at all about implementing this Act and that more and more women are getting more and more angry that this service is being denied them after being granted by decision of this House? Will my right hon. Friend look at this again and see what can be done?
    Mr. Robinson: Out of a possible total of 204, 160 local health authorities and authorities with delegated health powers have sent in reports. Of these, 80 per cent. report some expansion as a result of the 1967 Act.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would the right hon. Gentleman dissociate himself absolutely from the outrageous statement of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) about the size of families?
    Mr. Robinson: My right hon. Friend is perfectly capable of defending himself.

    Abortions (Registered Nursing Homes)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Health how many nursing homes in England and Wales have now been registered for abortions; and how many have not.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Fifty-three nursing homes have been approved for the purposes of the Abortion Act out of a total of 1,099 registered in England and Wales

    1237
    at 31st December, 1967, under the 1936 Public Health Act.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Do the figures which the Minister has show a considerable reluctance to be registered for this purpose?
    Mr. Robinson: I should not like to interpret the figures in any sense like that. Sixty-four completed forms of application, six applications were refused, one was withdrawn, and four are still under consideration.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is it not the case that, since the B.M.A.'s statement about abortions, my right hon. Friend is finding it difficult to get nurses and in some cases doctors to carry out this work?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I have no evidence of those sorts of results from any statement made by or on behalf of the B.M.A.

    Day Nurseries
    Mr. Ormeasked the Minister of Health if he will seek statutory powers to enable him to keep open day nurseries that are serving an urgent social need.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Health if he will take steps by legislation or otherwise to keep open day nurseries that are serving an urgent social need.
    Mr. Snow: It is the statutory responsibility of each local health authority to decide, in the light of its available resources, to what extent it should provide day nurseries.
    Mr. Orme: Is my hon. Friend aware that, to save a matter of a farthing rate, the Salford City Council has closed a priority nursery at Eccles Old Road, Salford, which is serving mothers, some of them unmarried, and others in urgent need of this service? What does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Snow: If the Eccles Old Road day nursery is closed, in the area represented by my hon. Friend 95 places will be provided by the local authority and a total of 357 other places under various private arrangements. My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that we confine to local authorities the provision of this sort of
    1238
    day nursery for children who are in need of care for social and health reasons. If he is right in saying that for a small local authority levy much more could be done, that is a matter for local responsibility, and we will do our best to encourage further provision ourselves.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my hon. Friend aware that many widows and unmarried or separated mothers are forced to go out to work and that, thanks to the meanness of the Salford City Council, many of these mothers will have to leave their children in unsuitable houses without proper supervision? Can he do something to bring the attention of the Council to this need?
    Mr. Snow: My hon. Friend should perhaps read the provisions of the Health Services and Public Health Bill now going through the House relating to child minding. The rest of his observations no doubt will be read and examined by his local authority.

    Disabled Drivers' Cars
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Health how many of the 1,600 households estimated to be eligible to receive disabled drivers' cars under the categories announced on 15th February, 1967, have actually received them to date.
    Mr. Snow: One hundred and eighty-eight have been received, 136 of which have succeeded.
    Mr. Marten: Is it not rather curious and disturbing that so few applications have been received? Does this mean that, when the Minister gets his new powers under the Bill, he will be able to make a much wider extension of the categories entitled to motor cars?
    Mr. Snow: It is a little premature to make that assumption. We have some reason to believe that, with the increased publicity about this, stemming from my right hon. Friend's statement in 1967, an increasing number of applications is being made. The position certainly needs watching.
    Mr. Fortescue: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that this apparent dilatoriness in dealing with applications does not mean that every effort will not be made under the Health Services and Public Health Bill to publicise the new services available?
    Mr. Snow: If there is any need to publicise these provisions, we will look at it. My impression is that the initiative must in the event be taken by the disabled person or his friends.

    Prescription Charges
    Mr. Murtonasked the Minister of Health why he has not excluded from the imposition of the prescription charge drugs supplied by hospital authorities to out-patients, and drugs supplied to other persons under the pharmaceutical services of the National Health Service, which are required for the treatment of chronic psychiatric disorders.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) and other hon. Members on 30th April.—[Vol. 763, c. 973–6.]
    Mr. Murton: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if patients suffering from these chronic illnesses are able to live full and normal lives in the community when supported by certain drugs, it is wrong that they should have to pay for these drugs?
    Mr. Robinson: Those patients will be helped by the arrangements for single payment exemptions which I announced in the House recently. We discussed with the doctors the question of psychiatric illnesses, for which the need for medication is bound to vary with the nature, severity and duration of the condition, but we were not able to reach agreement to include them in the list of chronic diseases.
    Mr. Pavitt: If my right hon. Friend cannot do that, will he take a special look at those undergoing intermittent dialysis on what are commonly known as kidney machines with a view to classifying them as in-patients?
    Mr. Robinson: I will consider what my hon. Friend says, but they, too, will be helped by the arrangements that I have mentioned.
    Mr. Dean: When does the Minister expect the single payment exemption scheme to come into operation?
    Mr. Robinson: I have already said that I hope before the winter. I should not
    1240
    like to be more precise than that at the moment.
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning exemptions from prescription charges.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied with the administrative arrangements involved in dealing with exemption of prescription charges; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning exemption from prescription charges.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The regulations providing for the reintroduction of prescription charges and the exemption of wide categories of patients came into operation on 10th June. It is as yet too early to reach firm conclusions about the operation of the arrangements.
    Mr. Campbell: With reference to the Minister's replies to the last Question, will he reconsider the position of those suffering from chronic mental illnesses, because long-term medication can keep them out of hospital and thus be less expensive for the Exchequer?
    Mr. Robinson: I am aware of this, and I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave just now to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton).
    Mr. Eadie: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the form filling part of the administration is regarded as complicated? Is he aware that my mail bag seems to demonstrate this fact?
    Mr. Robinson: Despite the wide publicity before the charges were reintroduced, I expected that it would be a little while before the public at large became familiar with the arrangements. Preliminary information suggests that this has been so and that additional burdens have, as a consequence, fallen upon chemists, whose co-operation I appreciate. But, progressively, I expect the position to improve.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the great cost of administration falling upon hospitals, chemists and others in administering these very complicated exemption arrangements?
    Mr. Robinson: This has been taken into account.
    Dr. Summerskill: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the total number of prescriptions issued has fallen since the imposition of charges? If so, does he agree that the interpretation is that people are not seeking medical advice because of this?
    Mr. Robinson: I have no evidence yet one way or the other. As soon as I have evidence, I shall keep the House informed.
    Lord Balniel: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the opinion of many chemists, doctors and the chronic sick the present arrangements are illogical, unfair and in many ways very muddled? Will he re-examine the whole position?
    Mr. Robinson: It will not be possible to take a proper conspectus of the present arrangements until they are completed by the arrangements which I hope to introduce before the winter.
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Health what steps he intends to take to remove anomalies in legislation concerning prescription charges affecting women pensioners and school children over the age of 15 years.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies of 2nd February to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), and 1st July to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas).— [Vol. 757, c. 429; Vol. 767, c. 182.]
    Mrs. Short: Has not my right hon. Friend changed his mind since he gave those replies? If not, does not he think that it is time he did? How does he justify the fact that women old-age pensioners cannot claim exemption while their husbands can if they are a certain age, and that children staying on at school until the age of 18 must presumably pay for their prescriptions? It is a nonsensical situation.
    Mr. Robinson: The answer to my hon. Friend's first two supplementary questions is "No," Sir. As I told the House before, there is some misunderstanding about this. It is an age exemption, and women pensioners aged between 60 and
    1242
    64 who are in need are dealt with under separate arrangements through exemption or refunds arranged through the Ministry of Social Security. The arrangements in force are precisely those on age grounds announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister initially.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Health how many organisations have written to him protesting against the fact that women over 60 years of age and retired may be required to pay prescription charges.
    Mr. K. Robinson: In addition to the pensioners' organisations I referred to in my Answer to my hon. Friend yesterday, representations have also been made by about half a dozen local organisations. —[Vol. 768, c. 164.]
    Mr. Eadie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many women feel that there is an active discrimination here? I am glad to say that because of this there will be a building up of resentment against the imposition of prescription charges.
    Mr. Robinson: There probably is a feeling of discrimination amongst some women, but, as I have tried to explain to the House, it is based on misunderstanding. There would be anomalies whatever one did. If I adopted my hon. Friends suggestion there would be anomalies as between the woman of 63 who was a pensioner and the one who was not a pensioner.
    Mr. Will Griffiths: When my right hon. Friend is grappling with the distasteful consequences of the reimposition of charges, does he ever reflect on his speeches in a happier period when he forecast exactly this consequence?
    Mr. Robinson: I often reflect on my earlier speeches and on my future speeches.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Why is the age criterion for men linked to the age of retirement, but not for women?
    Mr. Robinson: One might say that it was fortuitous that it is 65, which happens to be the age of patient at which general practitioners get a supplementary allowance for all the patients on their list.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to overcome the problem caused by the fact that many elderly people experience difficulty in signing the forms entitling them to exemption from prescription charges.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) on 9th July.—[Vol. 768, c. 40.]
    Mr. Fortescue: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many elderly people, because of failing eyesight, or rheumatic or arthritic fingers, or even because of sheer illiteracy, are embarrassed by the fact that they have to go to a shop in a public place and sign a form? Will he consider the possibility of their being allowed to produce their pension books instead of having to sign the forms?
    Mr. Robinson: I am aware that some problems have arisen from the design and layout of the declaration on the back of the form. My Department is considering possible improvements in the design of the back of the prescription form.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that many old folk find extreme difficulty in reading this form, rather than signing it, because the print is so small? Can he explain why the forms are now printed in blue?
    Mr. Robinson: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's last supplementary question. I can only suggest that the obvious explanation is the unlikely one in this case. As to the first part of his question, as I have already told the House, I am considering improvements in the design of the form.

    Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration Review Body (Evidence)
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange for the publication of the Government's evidence to the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration in connection with the 9th Report of that body.
    Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Why not, Sir?
    Mr. K. Robinson: In accordance with the recommendations of the Pilkington Royal Commission, the proceedings of the review body are conducted in private. The Government have always taken the view that written evidence also should be private unless publication is desirable for special reasons. We see no special reasons for publication on this occasion, but large extracts from our evidence are quoted in the review body's report.

    Student Radiographers (Grants)
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Minister of Health whether he will adjust the grants for student radiographers so as to bring them into line with other student grants.
    Mr. Snow: My right hon. Friend has this matter under consideration.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Will the hon. Gentleman urge on his right hon. Friend that a simple adjustment in this matter would bring particular benefit to those in this profession who come from poorer homes and would be of great help?
    Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. The present system of grant was designed to match the local training for which there are more than 100 schools permitting students to live at home. The present system has not been unsuccessful, but we are looking at it.

    National Health Service (Administrative Structure)
    Mr. Deanasked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to introduce one authority on an area basis to replace the present tripartite administrative structure in the National Health Service.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I shall shortly be publishing a Green Paper on administrative structure to assist all concerned to express their views before any decision is reached.
    Mr. Dean: In spite of the Green Paper that the right hon. Gentleman is to produce, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be of value to set up pilot schemes in appropriate areas, so that we can judge from their experience?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. The most important thing is discussion of the proposals.

    Book, "Sans Everything" (Reports of Inquiries)
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Minister of Health when he expects the report on the inquiry into the allegations in "Sans Everything" to be published.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 9th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow. East (Mr. Roebuck). A Command Paper containing the findings and recommendations of the six. Committees of Inquiry was published on that day. —[Vol. 768, c. 213–16.]
    Mr. Macmillan: Does not the Minister realise that many people are still very disturbed by the results of this Report? Will he accept that there is still a need for some method of continuing inquiry into these institutions? Can he tell the House when he is likely to be able to bring forward concrete proposals?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not think that there is any justification for anyone who has read both the book and the White Paper having further anxieties about allegations of deliberate cruelty on the part of the staff of these hospitals. When setting up the Committees of Inquiry I widened their terms of reference so that they could report on conditions in these hospitals today. Many criticisms were made, particularly on such matters as overcrowding, out-of-date buildings, and staff shortages. These are matters of which the House has long been aware— and I have certainly been aware of them. They are progressively being dealt with within the available resources.
    Lord Balniel: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are strong arguments for an inspectorate as a mark of public responsibility for those who are inarticulate in hospital, and does he not also think that the reports should be published so that there should be a continuous and well-informed public discussion of the administration of hospitals?
    Mr. Robinson: As I am about to publish a Green Paper, this matter should form part of the discussion of the future administrative structure of the service, but
    1246
    it is by no means certain that an inspectorate of the kind that hon. Members opposite have in mind would provide the absolute protection that they seem to think.

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS
    Ql. Miss Lestorasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to establish a Government Department with responsibility for the general promotion of harmonious community relations and to include matters relating to race relations within the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary already has overall responsibility for community relations in Great Britain.
    Miss Lestor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does he not agree that the effective working of race relations legislation rests to a large extent on good community relations and welfare services, including, in particular, those Departments dealing with race relations?
    The Prime Minister: The difficulty about this is that practically every important Home Department is involved in the special problems of community relations —the Ministry of Education and Science and the Ministry of Housing, as well as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's Department, which is responsible for co-ordination. I would have thought that the debates on the Race Relations Bill and other steps being taken to deal with immigration problems would satisfy my hon. Friend that everything possible is being done. We hope for further announcements in the near future.
    Mr. Thorpe: May I revert to a suggestion, emanating from various quarters, that there should be an all-party committee at least to consider and discuss matters of race relations in this country? Does not the Prime Minister think that this could be an appropriate moment to take initiatives in that direction?
    The Prime Minister: One form of suggestion—which I welcomed in a public speech—came from the right hon. Gentleman himself. We are considering this. I accept the desirability of dealing with

    1247
    these matters on an all-party basis, and we shall soon be ready to take an initiative in this matter.
    Mr. Heath: Can the Prime Minister say when the official survey of race relations in Britain will be ready? We hope that it will produce a great deal of information which will provide a sound basis for policy. Secondly, when will the Government's own urban programme be announced, and when may we see the provision of capital expenditure for the cities most affected?
    The Prime Minister: On the first part of the question, I shall have to discuss it with my right hon. Friend, but I shall let the right hon. Gentleman know the likely timing. On the second part, a lot of work has been done. It is practically ready and I hope that it will be announced in the near future. I cannot be certain, but I hope that it will be before the House rises.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Does not the Prime Minister agree that when the amalgamation takes place between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Security, the new Department of Social Affairs, or whatever it is to be called, would be the appropriate Department, with the social resources at its disposal, to look after the community aspects of race relations in particular?
    The Prime Minister: That is worth considering, but my hon. Friend will be aware that perhaps the biggest single problems are the problems of education and housing, neither of which will be in the merged Department. I thought that there was a general feeling in the House that control over immigration should be in the same Department as the Department responsible for community relations.

    BRITISH MUSEUM LIBRARY (SITE)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Prime Minister why no consultations took place between himself and the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries before the announcement of the Government's decision to abandon the plan to build the extension of the British Museum Library on the Bloomsbury site.
    The Prime Minister: Consultation with the Standing Commission is a matter for my right hon. Friends with responsibilities in this field, Sir. In the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, the view of my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Education and Science was that the matter was not of such direct concern to the Standing Commission as to make advance consultation necessary. After the decision was announced, however, the Chairman of the Commission discussed these matters both with my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Chairman of the National Libraries Committee and offered to give all the assistance he could to the Committee in its work. I greatly welcome Lord Rosse's public spirited approach and his desire to help.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Standing Commission was appointed by the Prime Minister for the express purpose of giving advice on these subjects. Was it not highly discourteous, at the least, that it should be neither consulted nor even informed in advance of an important decision of this kind in the very field in respect of which it was set up to advise?
    The Prime Minister: First, may I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am glad to see him back after his accident. This Question has been waiting for a long lime because of his absence.
    I am well aware of the feelings expressed on this matter. I have been into it carefully, and I am extremely glad that Lord Rosse and his Commission are co-operating fully in the work of the Dainton Committee. It is arguable whether or not it should have been told, but I have explained the circumstances.
    Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Dr. Dainton's Committee, which was set up by the Government to consider the whole future of the National Library, is not prohibited by its terms of reference from recommending the Bloomsbury site? If it should do so, would he consider the whole question afresh?
    The Prime Minister: That is another question, and no doubt it will be pursued if that perhaps hypothetical event should happen.

    DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Prime Minister whether he will now abolish the Department of Economic Affairs.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But does not the right hon. Gentleman think it wholly misleading to describe by this title a Department with responsibility for none of the major economic controls and no real influence on the economy? Is it not as unrealistic as George Orwell's Ministry of Love?
    The Prime Minister: I would leave that subject to others more qualified to speak. On the first part of the question, this Department is, of course, a coordinating Department and, as such, it would not be appropriate for it to be operating some of the direct controls, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it, or the direct relations with individual industries. It has a very wide field of responsibilities on the real resources side of economic affairs, and it has made and will make a very big contribution to the progress of regionalism.

    HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM (LEGISLATION)
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister on what date he proposes to introduce legislation to reform the House of Lords.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether he will now introduce interim legislation, this Session, to abolish the delaying powers of the House of Lords.
    The Prime Minister: I have as yet nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 20th June and to the Answers I gave to Questions on 25th June, 2nd July and 9th July.
    Mr. Marten: But when the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he would introduce legislation at an early date, is he aware that some people thought he would? Does the delay mean that
    1250
    perhaps the Government are not unanimous about basing legislation upon the all-party proposals to which the Prime Minister paid so much tribute?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, still traumatically affected by having been a member of a Government which gave a pledge that it would not introduce the Rent Act and then did. As to the rest of his Question, I said that we shall introduce legislation at an early date: we shall introduce legislation at an early date.
    Mr. Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the implementation of the suggestion contained in Question Q9 would mean a very short, simple Bill which could be introduced this Session and would prevent the emasculation of the legislative programme of this Government between now and the election, and that it is imperative that it should be done very quickly?
    The Prime Minister: As to legislation to deal purely with powers, this has been considered at various times in the past and more recently. It is not the best way, I think, of dealing with the problem which was brought into public prominence two or three weeks ago by the action of right hon. Gentlemen.
    Dr. Winstanley: Since the right hon. Gentleman has rejected both birth and election as methods of entry of the House of Lords, and since there are, possibly, objections to a second Chamber wholly nominated by him or his successors, would he reconsider his right hon. Friend's suggestion for a national lottery with peerages as prizes? [Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must come back from Gilbert and Sullivan to the Question.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Since the Prime Minister is now dealing with a Standing Commission for Museums, will he consider asking it to take over the House of Lords?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not think that that is relevant to this Question. However, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) has very well-known Liberal antecedents.

    INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT (MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENT)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Minister for Industry and Employment to take over the relevant responsibilities of, and replace the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Minister of Technology and the two Ministers of State at the Board of Trade concerned with aviation and shipping.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Campbell: Why not, as this would hardly fail to be an improvement on the present over-abundance of Ministers?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is expressing an opinion; we on this side do not agree with him.
    Mr. Moonman: While there may be some disagreement about the nature of the previous question, would my right hon. Friend not consider some inquiry into the structure of Government, certainly before implementing the findings of the Fulton Committee?
    The Prime Minister: As I have answered my hon. Friend before, the question of the machinery of Government is under continuous review. There have been some important announcements this year involving the merger of four Departments into two. The next step forward can most profitably take place after we have received the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government, which I hope will help to point the way to the solution of some of the problems which I think the whole House wants to solve in regionalism. Some of the recommendations of Fulton and of Seebohm and the Maude Commission, both of which are to be published, are highly relevant to the next step in the machinery of government.

    HUMAN RIGHTS (PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL)
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyonasked the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government plan to introduce legislation to implement Article 12 of the Inter-
    1252
    national Declaration of Human Rights and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to protect the privacy of the individual.
    The Prime Minister: The law of this country is already broadly in keeping with the Articles to which my hon. Friend refers, and I see little prospect of legislation of the kind referred to in my hon. Friend's Question finding an early place in the Government's legislative programme.
    Mr. Lyon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that English common law does not protect the privacy of the individual in the way in which American common law does in the United States? Would he consider the matter again because, although there might not be many cases which come to light, qualitatively the suffering and distress caused by invasion of privacy is very serious?
    The Prime Minister: I will, of course, continue to consider the matter as my hon. Friend asks. I would not have thought that practice in the United States suggests that it is the most successful country in the world in preventing invasions of privacy of many kinds which are not usual in this country. In my Answer, of course, I was referring to any legislation which might be needed, and I think that my right hon. Friends and I are satisfied that we have the legislation and the common law system necessary to give effect both to the United Nations Declaration and to the European Convention.

    NATIONAL ARCHIVE
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyonasked the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government will consult with all interested bodies, including the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Independent Television Authority, the Press and the film industry, to devise a policy for selecting and retaining information for a National Archive.
    The Prime Minister: The National Film Archive preserves selected film and television material of artistic and historic importance and the British Institute of Recorded Sound fulfils a similar rôle for sound recordings. The British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent

    1253
    Television Companies have extensive archives for programme purposes. Copies of all newspapers published in Great Britain are deposited with the British Museum. In view of these existing arrangements, I am not clear what purpose would be served by the consultations my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Lyon: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there would be some purpose in having overall control of the selection and retention of information, so that the material which would be passed on to future historians about this period is not simply at the whim of individuals who are under no public control?
    The Prime Minister: The position is not entirely as described by my hon. Friend. There is considerable co-operation between the various bodies working in the field of film, television and sound recordings, and I am not sure that a more centralised archive would necessarily achieve the best results. If my hon. Friend has any particular ideas, however, I will certainly see that they are considered.
    Mr. Bessell: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as none of the various organisations which he mentioned are under any legislative obligation to retain its archives, there might be an advantage in having a national archive which would be obliged to retain its records?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure— it is, of course, up to the hon. Gentleman to argue his case—that a legislative requirement would add to the very keen desire of all those operating the archives which I mentioned to do everything possible to conserve anything which is of historic and national interest. I would need to be persuaded of that proposition.

    INDIA (VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER)
    Dr. Grayasked the Prime Minister when he plans to visit India; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: I look forward greatly to visiting India when this can be arranged, Sir, but I cannot yet forecast when this is likely to be.
    Dr. Gray: Does my right hon. Friend not think that, given the replacement of John Freeman by a career diplomat and a number of problems like that of the Kenyan Asian holders of British passports and the non-proliferation treaty, which require discussion at top diplomatic level, he should reconsider that decision, that the time has passed when Commonwealth Prime Ministers were expected to come to London for discussions, and that he should travel more often to confer with them?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware that the replacement of one distinguished representative in India who had one particular background before he went there by another equally distinguished public servant who is now going to Delhi, will make the problems which my hon. Friend mentions either easier or more difficult to solve. But some of the problems would be highly appropriate for discussion at the forthcoming Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: If the Prime Minister thinks that there is merit in his hon. Friend's proposition, would he consider making his stay as lengthy as possible?
    The Prime Minister: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his witty and polished contribution to our discussion. I seem to remember that when I have been abroad there have been complaints from hon. Gentlemen opposite that I have not been here.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Would my right hon. Friend consider this matter seriously as one of urgency? Does he not realise that the acclaim given from the other side to the supplementary question about his being away from the country as long as possible arises from the fact that the party opposite cannot compete with his wonderful ability?
    The Prime Minister: That is a very agreeable remark from my hon. Friend. One of the difficulties that anyone in my position has is that he receives very large numbers of invitations from countries overseas because the standing of the country abroad is a good deal higher than it is in the eyes of hon. Members opposite.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Up to a year ago, the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]— spent much time travelling in Transport Command aircraft. Now he does not seem to go much further than the Isles of Scilly and Huyton. Why has he adopted this new policy?
    The Prime Minister: At any rate, I am glad to welcome back the hon. Gentleman. On all my recent visits abroad I have had the great benefit—and I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees with this —of Air Support Command. It has been an extremely valuable and a cheaper way of travelling. In those circumstances I have travelled many tens of thousands of miles since last December; to Australia, when the Leader of the Opposition went, and to Moscow and Washington since then.
    Mr. Pavitt: As the speech made by my right hon. Friend at the time of the trouble over the Rann of Kutch was so misconstrued throughout India, will my right hon. Friend treat a visit as a matter of urgency, because I am certain that the misunderstanding should and could be cleared up?
    The Prime Minister: There is obviously a clear misconception here, because the actions taken by Mr. Freeman and by his successor in Delhi, who was at that time High Commissioner in Pakistan, were responsible for settling the problem of the Rann of Kutch. The anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend refer to a statement made some months later at the time of the actual outbreak of fighting between India and Pakistan.
    Mr. Tapsell: As most of the serious problems that faced our former High Commissioner in Delhi stemmed directly from the Prime Minister's ill-chosen words at the time of the Indo-Pakistan conflict, would it not be kinder to our new High Commissioner if the Prime Minister stayed right away from India?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinions. They do not happen to be shared by the Government of India.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

DISABLEMENT INCOME COMMISSION
3.34 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), I welcome him back to our debates.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a commission for the introduction of a disablement income.
Forty-eight hours ago, in Trafalgar Square, I attended a rally of men and women whose lives are lived in pain and poverty. They represented the chronic sick and the disabled—over a million men and women who are prisoners in hospital beds, or in their own bedrooms or in wheel chairs. I regard that demonstration, marked by the silent symbols of dignity and courage, as eloquent testimony of the need of the Bill I seek to bring in.
I know that the House is rightly concerned with the grave national affairs which are its direct interest, but it is always willing to accept responsibility for the problems of minorities and of individuals. I think that I can best illustrate the problem of the disabled minority by reading a short extract from a letter which I received recently from a woman whose husband is disabled by multiple sclerosis. She wrote:
"He was a fine, hard-working athletic type, but he became redundant and we were forced back on to National Assistance. I could not begin to tell you how we live on this. Every day is a nightmare of penny pinching and scraping."
She goes on:
"We are condemned to live the life of poverty, and, considering the society in which we live, surely our hardships are enough to bear without abject poverty, too. Do you know, it has actually been suggested to me that I must make some sacrifices—and this from a minor official. Ludicrous, is it not, when every moment of our lives is a sacrifice? "
To me, that letter proves that the bleak impersonal word "disablement" is a synonym for personal and family tragedy. It has also proved, at any rate to me, the urgent need to establish a commission which can investigate immediately the problems of the disabled, and also to

1257
look at the anomalies involved, because I can assure the House that some of the anomalies involved are quite incredible. For example, a husband who is totally disabled by multiple sclerosis gets only one-third as much as the man who is industrially injured but similarly disabled.
The size of the family can be the same, the responsibilities of the family can be the same, the disease and the pain to be endured can be the same, yet one family is entitled to receive up to just 2s. short of £24 a. week, while the other family can only receive less than £8 a week. The main reason for this anomaly is that special allowances granted to one family are denied to another. I believe that this ranks as one of the most remarkable examples of discrimination of modern times, and the sad irony of that situation is that the very man who is discriminated against is, by definition, less able to fight on his own behalf.
That discrimination which is exercised against disabled men is even worse in the case of women. The disabled housewife is, believe it or not, entitled to not one penny, even though she may be totally paralysed. This is an astonishing state of affairs. The consequences for a totally disabled paralysed housewife are simple and quite direct. She can either pay for someone to come in and look after her and her husband and home, which, of course, cannot be afforded by people on a low income, or, alternatively, her husband can give up his job to look after her and the family and they live on supplementary benefit.
The only other choice left is for the family to be broken up. This entails the wife going into hospital and the children going into the care of the local authority at a minimum total cost of £50 a week. This is family tragedy, compounded by economic chaos.
As these anomalies are so indefensible and so odd, one is compelled to look around at the major countries of Western Europe. Bad as we are in this respect perhaps we can find some consolation if we discover that there are even worse, but the astonishing fact is that most of the major countries of Western Europe are paying disablement income to their disabled. So we have to lower our sights a little and look at the countries which have no great pretentions
1258
to be the major countries of Western Europe.
In Stockholm recently, there has been a seminary on the social security statistics of Scandinavian countries. It was called "Social Security in Nordic Countries." All these countries give generous disablement payments, not only to their industrially disabled but to their other disabled, including housewives. The countries included in that report are Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland. Iceland is providing for its disabled men and women while the cripples of Great Britain have to be carried to rally in Trafalgar Square to demand not charity, but justice and to request, not sympathy, but action.
I am aware of the conomic difficulties confronting the Government. I have no wish to introduce a partisan note this afternoon, but I believe that, despite these economic difficulties, the Government have a very proud record of social legislation, but this is cold comfort for the disabled who are denied a disablement income.
I realise and accept that the Government are concerned with the plight of the disabled and have initiated an inquiry into the incidence of disability. This is a great step forward, but it will be at least 18 months, possibly two years, before the results of such an inquiry can be made known. My concern is that at the end of those 18 months or two years the Government will be faced with the task of embarking on an examination of the problems of paying a disablement benefit.
Any such payment involves highly complicated issues. For example, on what basis should a disablement income be paid? How is one to assess the degree of disablement? What is to be the definition of disablement? Should disablement payment be made for loss of earning power or loss of faculty? It may even be necessary to visit other countries, such as the pioneer Iceland. This could involve a delay of a number of years. I am asking the House to establish a commission—not a Royal Commission, but a commission—of able and energetic men who could do all the necessary preliminary work so that there is no delay in paying a disablement income.
In seeking the leave of the House to introduce my Bill, I point out that the

1259
sponsors disagree profoundly on many issues but on this they are united. They are offering the Government a suggestion and an opportunity of contingency planning so that the thousands of disabled people who are depending on them and waiting on them will not be required to wait too long.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ashley, Mr. James Griffiths, Mr. David Price, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Dame Joan Vickers, Mrs. Braddock, Dame Irene Ward, Mr. Pardoe, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. G. Campbell, Mr. Molloy, and Mr. Astor.

DISABLEMENT INCOME COMMISSION
Bill to establish a commission for the introduction of a disablement income, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 195.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [27TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS (REPORT)
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), may I remind the House that so far over two dozen hon. Members wish to speak in today's debate. Reasonably brief speeches will enable me to call more speakers.
  3.48 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Carr: I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations 1965-1968 (Command Paper No. 3623).
  Before I embark on my speech on the Motion, I am sure that the whole House would wish to show that it was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) actively participating in our affairs again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] What he said is something we should bear in mind in this debate. The hon. Member drew our attention to the fact that far from being ahead of the world in our wealth and ability to provide resources to help people who need it, there are uncomfortable signs—I am not making a particular party point here, I assure the House—that over a considerable number of years we have been falling behind other countries in our ability to do this. The system of industrial relations which we are talking about today, although, of course, not the only factor, is one of the main factors in our ability as a country to produce the maximum amount of wealth to use in this and other ways.
  I would like, first, to put on record our thanks to Lord Donovan, to the members of his Commission, and to the Commission's staff. I regret that I must also put it on record straight away that, in the Opposition's view, the Commission's recommendations are in toto seriously inadequate to the scale and urgency of the problem.
  Nevertheless, although we feel strongly that the Report falls short of

  1261
  what is needed, we agree with the essence of the Report's diagnosis of the problem. We welcome strongly the emphasis which it puts on collective bargaining and the need to develop it at company and factory level. We also welcome a number of its principal recommendations, which are very much in line with some of the main proposals in the Conservative policy document, "Fair Deal at Work". Moreover, whatever one's judgment may be about the value of the Report's recommendations in whole or in part, the Report is undeniably a most substantial work on this difficult and complex subject and provides what will be an invaluable basis on which to frame future policy.
  I am sure that it is right that we should debate the Report in this early and preliminary way. Because it is a preliminary debate, the Opposition have deliberately chosen a neutral Motion—to take note of the Report—rather than one requiring any Division to express any particular verdict at this stage in our consideration.
  Although we do not expect the Secretary of State today to commit the Government to any final conclusions about the exact nature of the action which they will take, we do expect her— I make this clear at the very beginning —to commit the Government unequivocally to the proposition that urgent action is required. The present state of industrial relations in Britain as disclosed by the facts presented in this Report cannot be allowed to continue unchecked. There has been a standstill for over three years while we have waited for this Report. Now we have got it, the decks are cleared, and the Government must get on with the job.
  I therefore put three specific questions to the Secretary of State. Will she undertake to publish a White Paper giving the Government's conclusions and plan of action? Will she submit that White Paper to the House for further debate and approval before drafting legislation? Will she announce target dates for the publication of the White Paper and the introduction of the necessary following legislation? We suggest the end of November for the White Paper and February for the legislation as being the latest dates which the national interest
  1262
  will reasonably allow while, at the same time, providing the Government with a reasonable period for the full consultation and consideration which are necessary.
  In pressing the right hon. Lady for speedy action, may I remind her that it is now nearly four years since the Prime Minister told the T.U.C. that he saw no need for a Royal Commission, which would take minutes and waste years, and that the practical problems could not wait for years.
  Why is there this urgent need for radical action to reform our industrial relations? In many respects, Britain led the way, and still does, in the development of trade unionism and industrial relations. In terms of working days lost directly through strikes, Britain's record will stand up reasonably well to international comparison. As the Report says, judged by this measure our record has been about average compared with that of other countries.
  Why, then, all the fuss? The answer as to why all the fuss is to be found in Chapters III and VII of the Report, which give a pungent analysis of the nature and effects of the strikes and other forms of industrial pressure from which industry suffers. As the Report says in paragraph 410, the tally of working days lost is a "seriously misleading" basis on which to assess the economic effect of the stoppages. For one thing, as the Report further says, days lost at other establishments because of the indirect effects of the stoppage are not included in the statistics, though they may, nevertheless, be substantial.
  More important even than that is the fact that the peculiar nature of industrial disputes is particularly damaging to the economy. The Report points out that 95 per cent. of all strikes are unofficial, in the sense that they are not authorised by unions and almost invariably are also unconstitutional, in the sense that they are in breach of agreement. Paragraph 414 says:
  "it is characteristic of unofficial action that it is unpredictable."
  I want the House to dwell on the word "unpredictable", because predictability is an increasingly important factor in modern technological industry, and the curse of unpredictability which afflicts

  1263
  important sectors of industry is a handicap from which other industrial countries do not in general suffer.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: The point about 95 per cent. of strikes being unofficial is very important, because it is repeated many times in the Report. I and many people I know contest the accuracy of this figure, because many disputes are made official at a later date or, if not made official, dispute benefit is paid. This is a misleading aspect of the Report.
  Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt develop that point, Mr. Speaker, if he succeeds in catching your eye. I think that the House would be foolish not to accept the impartiality of the Donovan Report and the depth of its analysis and to make the most of the facts as they can be obtained.
  I was saying that this unpredictability is a curse from which, on the whole, other major industrial countries do not suffer. They have strikes; some, perhaps, even have more strikes, but normally strikes in other countries occur only when fixed-term agreements have expired and there is tough bargaining over negotiating new ones. Very rarely do strikes occur in other countries without warning or in breach of agreement.
  Moreover, as the Donovan Commission brings out, whatever may be the absolute figures which the hon. Gentleman contests, the position in Britain is getting worse. Although the number of official strikes remains small and static, the number of the unpredictable and unofficial strikes is on a strong rising trend. The Report shows that in industries other than mining the number of such strikes has risen from 572 in 1956 to 1,384 in 1966 and to the provisional figure of 1,694 in 1967. Moreover, the Report expresses the opinion that the incidence of such strikes is a good deal higher than the official statistics suggest.
  On top of this, so many sections of modern industry are interdependent nowadays that a few men stopping work in one place can throw out thousands more elsewhere in a very short time, thus making the curse of unpredictability— and it is a curse—all the greater and more widespread in its damage to our
  1264
  economy. The Report says, in paragraph 415:
  "… the prevalence of unofficial strikes, and their tendency (outside coalmining) to increase, have such serious economic implications that measures to deal with them are urgently necessary."
  Surely if we can agree about nothing else we can agree that
  "measures to deal with them are urgently necessary."
  The question is: what measures and with how much urgency? This, in our opinion, is where the Report falls down. This fatal weakness is apparent within the text of the Report itself. People speak of the Donovan Report as if it were a unanimous or cohesive whole, whereas it is nothing of the sort. No fewer than half of the Commission's members, including its chairman, felt it necessary to add supplementary notes or reservations at the end, some of them of a fundamental nature. Moreover, throughout the main Report, far from being unanimous, there are frequent notes of dissent from various members on major issues.
  Nearly all these points of dissent centre round a common point of concern, namely, that the measures being recommended by the majority lack the urgency and effectiveness which the Commission unanimously agrees to be necessary in its diagnosis of the disease. I regret that, presumably through a lack of time and resources, this justified concern by so many members of the Commission has not been worked up into a single and powerful minority report.
  The important supplementary note by Lord Tangley and the even more fundamental note of reservation by Mr. Andrew Shonfield showed what could and should have been achieved, particularly if the Commission had included at least one member with real down-to-earth experience of collective bargaining in manufacturing industry at home and abroad.
  The upshot is that the main Report, as Mr. Shonfield says at the beginning of his note of reservation,
  "barely concerns itself with the long-term problem of accommodating bodies with the kind of concentrated power which is possessed by trade unions to the changing future needs of an advanced industrial society."
  Because the Report has fudged this long-term issue of principle, the Commission

  1265
  has fudged and inevitably remained divided on the immediate practical measures required to cure the British disease of unofficial, unconstitutional strikes.
  This is why we see throughout the Report a substantial minority of the members repeatedly jibbing at what they feel instinctively to be the inadequacy of the remedies proposed. Thus it is that we arrive at the point where the main instrument of change, the urgent change, proposed by the Report is the Industrial Relations Commission unsupported by any formal powers. This simply does not add up to a credible remedy either in its scope or in its sense of urgency for the critical position which the Commission itself unanimously and so sharply defined. This is admitted, in effect, by almost half the members of the Commission in their various notes of dissent and reservation, and it is clear from his addendum that the chairman himself is far from happy.
  What, then, should the remedy be? Is it to give the proposed Industrial Relations Commission some real power in one or more of the forms proposed by the dissenting members? This idea should be carefully studied, but my initial reaction is to doubt that it is the proper answer. There is an important rôle to be played by inquiry, education and persuasion, but that process, in our view, is better kept apart from compulsory powers. Just as we oppose giving the Prices and Incomes Board statutory powers to impose its will in individual cases, so we believe that it would be wrong in principle to give statutory interventionist powers to a closely comparable body such as the proposed commission.
  In the Conservative policy document, "Fair Deal at Work", we propose to reconstitute the present Prices and Incomes Board as what we call a new Productivity Board. We cannot help noting that some of the functions which we propose for our Productivity Board are similar to and overlap some of those suggested by the Donovan Report for its Industrial Relations Commission, and we wonder, therefore, whether the best hope might be to have a single Productivity Board with somewhat wider functions than we have so far proposed in our document but without statutory powers to enforce its detailed decisions.
  1266
  This could be very helpful to the progress and improvement of our industrial relations, but, while such a concept may have an important rôle to play in assisting the change which has to be brought about, we believe that it is only a subsidiary rôle. We are convinced that it is not enough on its own and that the fundamental remedy has to be found by bringing industrial relations within a comprehensive framework of civil law, as in other major industrial countries of the free world.
  At this point, and without going into detail, I stress that what we are talking about is civil law as opposed to criminal law. So much of the discussion and controversy on this point is bedevilled by that misunderstanding. We are speaking of the civil law, not the criminal law. With that important emphasis, I turn now to some of the arguments which surround this radical and, I realise, controversial proposal in the British context.
  First, as I have said, we ought to recognise that what we propose is now the practice in other major industrial countries in the free world. We should note that, under that system, other countries do not suffer from the British disease of unofficial, unconstitutional disputes which the Donovan Report has unanimously identified as the main and growing disease in our industrial relations in Britain which has to be cured as a matter of urgency. It does not happen in those other countries. We should note also that in these other countries the trade unions do not suffer detailed State intervention in collective bargaining such as we now have in increasing intensity under the statutory incomes policy. We should note further that in these other countries real earnings, standards of living and national wealth have been rising significantly faster than they have in Britain.
  It is feared, and sincerely feared, I know, by many trade unionists both within and outside the House that such a framework of law as we propose would weaken the trade unions. Even if they accept, as I hope they do, that it would not be our intention to weaken them, they still, I think, genuinely fear that such would be the effect. I ask hon. Members and others who have that fear to look abroad. Experience in practice in other countries shows that, on the

  1267
  contrary, it strengthens responsible constitutional trade union authority.
  The majority of trade union leaders in other countries will confirm that that has been their experience, even though, as, for example, in Sweden and the United States, they feared and fought bitterly against the introduction of the legislation in the first place. They may even now wish to see it changed on points of detail, but in principle they accept and support the system because they have found, in practice, that it has enabled them to win better pay and conditions for their members than they would otherwise have been able to do.
  Too many people, in discussing this subject, speak as though there were two sharply opposed alternative policies, one the voluntary system, typical of Britain, the other a foreign legalistic system enforced by penal sanctions. But that is fallacious nonsense. Does anyone suggest, for instance, that trade unions in Canada and the United States are not independent bodies conducting voluntary collective bargaining with a great deal of power?
  I stress, therefore, that our proposals for a comprehensive framework of civil law do not touch the voluntary nature of collective bargaining. What touches the voluntary nature of collective bargaining, and on an increasing scale, is the Government's statutory incomes policy. The truth is that the so-called voluntary system has always operated under the influence of law, and this law has had a profound effect on the way in which trade unions here have developed and the way in which industrial relations have been conducted. It is simply not true that ours is a voluntary system uninfluenced by law. It is a child of law.
  The trouble with our present body of trade union law is that much of it is antiquated and geared to the conditions of the 19th rather than the 20th century, and that it has grown, like Topsy, without any coherent policy or purpose, with the result that, in many ways, it is incomplete and riddled with anomalies.
  I stress and underline three times that the main responsibility for progress in these matters must rest just as much in the future as in the past on responsible voluntary action within industry, on
  1268
  management and on trade unions alike, with, we believe, the chief onus for initiative on management. But our point is that bad law can hinder responsible voluntary action and good law can help it. We want to replace the present hotchpotch of law with a single body of law with a coherent purpose, relevant to modern industrial conditions and to the present power and status of trade unions in the second half of the 20th century. We also want, once this system of law is established, that it should be reviewed and brought up to date at regular intervals, just as we do with company law.
  We also want to supplement the body of actual law by attaching to it a code of industrial relations practice to emphasise the authority we give to that code. We believe that, provided the code of practice is clear and constructive, it will do much to raise the below average standards and bring the average nearer the best. While not directly enforceable, its provisions would be taken into account by the industrial courts, by arbitrators, by ad hoc boards of inquiry and by the Productivity Board and Government Departments.
  I hope that, in considering our proposals, the House will not overlook the importance of the code of industrial relations practice, to which much further thought on detail has yet to be given, which we would propose to attach as a schedule to our industrial relations Act.
  The more we have studied tills subject, with the help of people extremely experienced in these matters, the more we have become convinced that the sort of system about which I have been talking would provide a powerful new help and incentive to responsible voluntary action, just as it has done in other countries. We cannot go on resisting change on the ground that in some mysterious way we are so different from everybody else, that remedies which work elsewhere can never be considered here, and that our traditional custom and practice is sacrosanct, no matter how imperfectly or otherwise it has come to work in modern conditions.
  I am not suggesting that we can or should import into Britain a complete package of the exact measures used elsewhere. All I am suggesting is that we must be prepared to discard our insularity and be prepared to look and to learn from other countries' experience.
  Mr. Eric Moonman: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the need to bring the trade unions within the law and has talked about the experience of the United States and other countries. We on this side have a right to demand from the right hon. Gentleman an explanation of what he means by bringing the trade unions within the law. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is not interested in details. We, and a lot of other people, are. The right hon. Gentleman must not get away with this one.
  Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is getting very excited. I thought today we were principally discussing the Donovan Report.
  Mr. Moonman: Quite.
  Mr. Carr: Because we believe this matter to be so important, because we think it requires fundamental thought and discussion, and because we realise that it is controversial, at the beginning of April we published "Fair Deal at Work", which sets out in remarkably specific detail what we propose. Our proposals are there to be judged. We are prepared for anyone to take the trouble to study those proposals and to judge them in detail. This is on record.
  But the problems of human relations in industry cannot, and never will, be solved by constantly taking trade unions—still less thousands of individual strikers—to court. To suggest that this is inherent in our proposals is to misconceive the main purpose of civil law. Remember again that it is civil, not criminal, law that we are talking about.—[Interruption.] It is entirely different. We will go into that in more detail on another occasion.
  Certainly, the possibility of civil action for damages is there in the background and may occasionally have to be taken. The law would be meaningless if that was not a possibility. But experience in other countries shows that it is very much the exception and not the rule for such cases to be brought to court. I think it worth noting that the majority of cases which are brought to court are usually brought by unions and employees against employers, not the other way round. There is no reason to imagine that experience would be any different in Britain. The most important purpose of
  1270
  a system of civil law is its influence on the way individuals and organisations approach their responsibilities and do business together. Its main purpose is not to punish breaches of agreement after they have occurred, but to deter their occurrence. We are proposing preventive medicine, and individuals and organisations, on the whole, like to respect the law if they know clearly enough what it is.
  Likewise, we are convinced that it is a fallacy to suggest, as some do, that the establishment of a comprehensive framework of law would have the effect of freezing the status quo when the prime need in Britain is to promote change. On the contrary, the effect of law is to influence behaviour and to promote change.
  Take the case of the recent breathalyser law, in which I am sure the right hon. Lady will be interested. Would the right hon. Lady, of all people, suggest that this has maintained the status quo, or that its chief purpose has been to punish? Surely the right hon. Lady would agree that the breathalyser law has had a powerful effect in deterring irresponsible behaviour and changing people's habits.
  Or, again, take the Donovan Commission's own arguments which lead it to recommend a statutory right of appeal against unjust dismissal. Paragraph 539 says:
  "… legislation has the advantage of making possible an immediate raising of standards".
  Paragraph 540 says:
  "… statutory machinery … will … reinforce the effect of our other recommendations … and will, therefore, assist the growth of collective bargaining on sound lines."
  Of course, those arguments are right. But if these arguments are right in relation to raising standards and promoting collective bargaining in this one field of dismissal procedures, do not the same arguments apply with equal force over a much wider field? I am sure that they do.
  The truth is that the Donovan Report's arguments about the rôle of law are both unconvincing and inconsistent. Moreover, it admits that the law may become necessary and, most extraordinary of all, it suggests that a system of law might be introduced once all the desirable changes have been produced without it. This is like the right hon. Lady, when Minister

  1271
  of Transport, saying that she would introduce the breathalyser law when all drivers had been persuaded to give up drinking.
  Central to all this discussion about the rôle of law is the status of collective agreements. Surely in a situation where, according to the Commission's own diagnosis, the dangerous and growing disease from which we are suffering is strikes in breach of agreement, one of our chief objectives must be to make collective agreements binding on all parties. Yet the Report devotes a whole chapter to discussing and dismissing this proposition, although in another chapter it recommends the repeal of Section 4 of the 1871 Act which has always been believed to be the greatest obstacle to enforcing collective agreements.
  Mr. Orme: We believe so, too.
  Mr. Carr: The Report, in paragraph 471, states that the
  "… intention and policy that collective bargaining and collective agreements should remain outside the law is one of the characteristic features of our industrial relations … It is deeply rooted in its structure."
  Those are pregnant words. Perhaps, in view of the unique nature of the trouble from which we suffer in this country, it is about time that this particular feature was uprooted.
  The Donovan Report also suggests that it would be wrong to try to make the existing type of agreement binding and that in any case the typical British collective agreement is too loosely worded for this to be possible. But nobody—certainly not the Conservative Party—is proposing any such thing. We do not propose forcing employers and trade unions against their will to make legally binding agreements. What we do say is that we should deliberately create the assumption that a collective agreement should be binding, except to the extent that the parties freely agree otherwise.
  This would put the concept of the binding agreement right in the centre of the bargaining table. We are sure that it would be a powerful incentive—not least to employers—to think more closely about what really ought to go into a collective agreement and about communicating its terms and obligations to those whom the agreement affects.
  1272
  That would lead directly, in our opinion, to the development of the more precise and written type of agreement which the Commission says should be one of the important objectives if we are to cure our troubles. It would also put more bargaining power into the hands of union leaders. As Mr. Andrew Shonfield says in paragraph 40 of his note of reservation:
  "The probability is that those unions which are able to promise reliably to perform their part of a collective agreement will obtain better bargains from employers for their members … ".
  In other words, the acceptance of the commitment has a real value in the form of hard cash in the pay packet.
  To sum up. I have concentrated on the main arguments regarding the basic type of reform needed. The time for dealing with detailed proposals within the main structure will come at the next stage of our debate. We agree with the Donovan Commission in its diagnosis of the British disease in industrial relations. We believe that it is right. We agree with the Commission that it is urgent that action should be taken to remedy this disease. We agree that this action should concentrate on the development of constructive collective bargaining, particularly at plant and company level.
  We cannot agree, however, that the sum total of the Commission's recommendations is anything like adequate to achieve the objective which the Commission itself says is so urgent. We are more than ever convinced that our problems cannot and will not be cured sufficiently quickly by detailed intervention on a case by case basis, least of all when that intervention has no power behind it.
  We believe that the proper and essential starting point for reform is to provide a general pressure and incentive by means of a comprehensive industrial relations Act, coupled with the code of practice of which I have spoken. We have set out the broad contents of such an Act in our policy document "Fair Deal at Work", and, while we would certainly wish, in the light of discussions, to make additions or amendments on points of detail, we see no reason at all to withdraw in any way from its main purpose and method.

  1273
  We look around the world and see that Britain today is unique in three things: first, it is unique in having the overwhelming majority of its strikes in unofficial, unconstitutional and unpredictable form; secondly, it is unique among major industrial nations in having intensified State intervention in details of collective bargaining; thirdly, it is unique in not having already a comprehensive system of law such as we propose. We do not say that giving Britain that system is the only thing that needs to be done— far from it. But we do say that, until we have such a system, we shall not be creating the essential conditions and the essential change of climate without which we shall never achieve prosperity.
  4.24 p.m.
  The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) began by thanking Lord Donoyan and his colleagues for the penetrating analysis of our system of industrial relations contained in their Report, although the right hon. Gentleman then went on to make the most perfunctory dismissal of all the lessons to be learned of that analysis.
  Of course, it is not to be expected that everyone will agree with the Commission's conclusions. Indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the members of the Commission themselves were not unanimous on several important issues, although I think that he was carrying this point a little far in complaining that they did not band together to produce a minority report. Did it not occur to him that perhaps they did not band together because the dissidence was on individual points and not on the main thesis and analysis on which the right hon. Gentleman has directed his attack?
  This subject is vast, comprehensive and highly controversial. This is why the Government said, when the Donovan Report was published, that they would consult very widely before outlining their views and proposals for action in a White Paper. The right hon. Gentleman wanted me to commit myself unequivocally to urgent action. I assure him that I have lost no time in launching the consultations. I have already had my first meeting with the T.U.C. and I have asked
  1274
  to meet the C.B.I. But it is interesting, significant, and, I may add, commendable, that the C.B.I. has asked for more time before meeting me because it wishes to discuss the Report. The C.B.I is approaching the Report rather more detachedly and objectively than the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues want to do. It is not rushing in with the sewn-up conclusions with the print hardly dry on the Donovan Report. In addition, I shall be consulting the nationalised industries and other interested organisations, and it is entirely right that Parliament should have the chance to express its views before the White Paper is produced.
  I welcome this debate and will listen very carefully indeed to the views expressed from both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman himself put three direct questions to me. First, he asked me if I would undertake to publish a White Paper. I do not think that he needed to repeat that question this afternoon, since I have already made it clear to the House that the Government will publish a White Paper and do so before legislation is presented to the House. I thought that I had made that clear.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked me for a target date for publication of the White Paper. He suggested November as a reasonable date and I would agree that we should produce it before the end of the year. But I would not wish to commit myself to 30th November or 1st December.
  Thirdly, the right hon Gentleman asked me for the exact date of the introduction of legislation. Clearly, the extent to which legislation will be required to implement the recommendations of the Report must depend to a considerable extent on the outcome of the consultations in which I am just about to engage. Until we know how comprehensive the legislation should be, it is clearly impossible for me to give a date for its introduction.
  Mr. R. Carr: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear about the White Paper. I was, in fact, seeking an undertaking that, when the Government publish it, we shall have a further chance to debate it. I realise that the right hon. Lady had already promised to publish a White Paper.
  Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the question of a debate is a matter for the usual channels, and no doubt it will be pursued through them.
  Like the right hon. Gentleman, I accept the objectivity and the reliability of the Donovan Report in defining and stressing the problems we have to deal with. I hope that he will, therefore, accept the objectivity and the reliability of the Report which rejects some of the nostrums of hon. Members opposite. He cannot quote the Report in aid quite so selectively.
  The right hon. Gentleman gave about the most grudging tribute to the Report which we could have had. There was also a marked lack of detailed and constructive suggestions for dealing with the problem which he so graphically outlined, and he did not answer the interruption of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman). Here we are left with of ominous uncertainty hanging over us about exactly what it is that the Conservative Party would propose in this context.
  I want in a moment to analyse some of the rather sweeping and generalised suggestions for action which the right hon. Gentleman has made, but I want to start by finding a point on which we can agree. We can agree—and the right hon. Gentleman's speech confirmed this, although he dismissed it as a relatively unimportant part of the whole theme—about the Report's insistence on collective bargaining being the best way in which to run industrial relations. That being so, our first concern should be to improve the system of collective bargaining.
  This is extremely important, because all the Report's other conclusions and recommendations flow from the practical approach of the Commission's belief that what we need to do if we want stabler industrial relations and constructively to tackle the problem of unofficial strikes is to concentrate on getting better working methods for the negotiation of collective agreements on wages and conditions and for the conduct of employer-worker relationships at the work place.
  The Commission finds serious defects in the present system. It believes that some are due to imperfections of the law governing industrial relations, but it goes
  1276
  out of its way time and time again to stress the theme that the main trouble is due to the discrepancies between the formal machinery of industrial relations and the way in which the system actually works. Its central theme, therefore, is not the need for legislative change, but the need for change in collective bargaining, industry wide and at company and plant levels.
  The Report points out that today we have two systems of collective bargaining, the formal, based on industry-wide bargaining, and the informal, based on plant bargaining. It points out that the effective level of earnings in many industries is determined largely by negotiations at the work place. But, because of the way in which these negotiations are carried out, we get anomalies in payments, inadequacies in disputes procedure and dissatisfaction with wage payment systems and the general conditions which lead to the very many unofficial strikes with which everybody in the House would like collectively to deal. Therefore, what has happened is that, although at one level we have had the industry-wide agreement which is supposed to be regulating these difficult matters, real authority has passed to the work place, where it is not accompanied by a correspondingly authoritative and comprehensive agreement.
  Therefore, all the remedies of the Report are directed towards strengthening the system of collective bargaining. Of course, collective bargaining is not just a private matter. Its conduct is a vital national concern. But what we are asked to accept this afternoon, and I for one accept it and I am sure that my hon. Friends do, is that the national interest will be served only by recognising that collective bargaining is about workers' legitimate rights. It is about wages; it is about conditions; it is about overtime; it is about piece rates; it is about job grading; it is about everything which affects the daily lives of workers. We therefore have to start by accepting the legitimacy of these interests.
  But collective bargaining is also about a bargain. Hon. Members opposite sometimes talk as though not only is the worker capable of imposing his will, with a kind of all-embracing monopoly power, but that this is his major preoccupation.

  1277
  That is not the impression which the employers give by their actions under the law, or the reaction of many employers to actual experience in their factories and on the shop floors. The employer has an interest in maintaining good relations and in getting the work done efficiently. The employer has an interest in getting on well, in human terms, with his own people.
  Therefore, the national interest is best served not by putting on legal restrictions which do not tally with these realities, but by ensuring that the collective bargains are good bargains and that they are conducted and defined at the level at which they happen and therefore at the level at which they are likely to be accepted and observed. Therefore, the whole aim of the Donovan Report is to work towards the establishment of comprehensive and authoritative company or factory agreements covering all the matters about which the workers have such profound concern, covering overtime and piece rates and job grading and productivity and disputes procedures, all the realities of the work place, all the factors which, if not properly handled, are the cause of the sudden, sporadic strikes which cause the dislocation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
  Mr. R. Carr: Would not the right hon. Lady agree that all these things, affecting both national interest and personal interest in collective bargaining, are just as true in America, Germany and Sweden and as important to the workers there as to the workers here.
  Mrs. Castle: But the legislation overseas is not identical, and overseas legislation does not produce a strike-free country. The right hon. Gentleman himself spoke of the record of days actually lost and showed that we were doing better than other countries. We do not have so much the protracted official strike as the sporadic, unpredictable, unofficial strike. What we should not aim for is getting rid of unofficial strikes and ending by losing more working days through official strikes. Let us see whether we cannot, by analysing what are the causes of unofficial strikes, deal with them without adding to the sum total of working days lost. We have made contributions to industrial relations before, and I hope that we can do so again.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to inform the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) that, despite what he says, about five times more strike days are lost in the United States pro rata than in this country?
  Mrs. Castle: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not contesting that, because it is in the Report, and he said that he accepted its analysis as being authoritative. But he seems to think that we must adopt procedures which will turn unofficial strikes into official ones. Let us see if we can adopt procedures which so strengthen collective bargaining that we get fewer strikes overall. That is the whole argument of the Donovan Report.
  The Report says that the aim should be to strengthen the rôle of both management and unions. I am sure that this is the kernel of the problem. The right hon. Gentleman said, again slightly perfunctorily, that management has a very big responsibility. My heavens! it has. He might have spent a little more time on discussing it. We are all very interested in the contribution by Professor Ulman to the recent Report of the Brookings Institution. He said that it is generally accepted in the United States that management gets the kind of union it deserves. Therefore, there is clearly a very big obligation on management, because it also gets the kind of collective bargain it deserves.
  This is very much elaborated in the Donovan Report, where it stresses the responsibility of boards of directors to show greater interest in industrial relations. This is a call that should go out from the House, because I am sure that we all agree that the dislocation of much of our bargaining procedure has been due to the devolution by boards of companies of their responsibilities for shaping good industrial relations.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: May I give a word of warning to my right hon. Friend? We should not go too far with the argument about abolishing national agreements. We must understand that some national agreements are the basis for good factory agreements. Therefore, I urge her not to be carried away too much on this point.
  Mrs. Castle: I have never spoken of abolishing national agreements, and the Royal Commission does not advocate that. It says that there is a very specific rôle for national agreements, just as there is for the employers' associations, but it also says that the rôle of the national agreements should be more clearly defined, and that they should not be trying to deal with matters that are of immediate day-to-day interest on the factory floor.
  The Report also makes it clear that the responsibility of management is to help develop this comprehensive bargaining machinery. It flows from this approach—and it is very significant that this was not included in the right hon. Gentleman's speech—that one cannot have good collective bargaining without strong trade unions. This is very important, because if we are talking about evolution we are talking about the attitudes of employers as well as trade unions.
  There are still employers who are being dragged reluctantly into the realities of the second half of the 20th century. This is reflected in the fact that the Royal Commission has to urge that employers should recognise the rights of workers to be organised in trade unions., and particularly the rights of white-collar workers. Industry has not really accepted this yet.
  The Report also calls for a change in the law to remove formal barriers to belonging to a trade union, and speaks of the need for the intelligent employer who can see what is involved in industrial relations to welcome the shop steward, recognising him as a responsible contributor to the collective bargain on the shop floor, and, therefore, providing him with facilities to do his work. I wonder how many hon. Gentlemen opposite were a little taken aback when the Report suggested, for instance, that there should be a deliberate extension of the check-off system, that there should be facilities for voting in union elections and for meetings to be held on the premises.
  The Report also rightly calls on the trade unions to adapt their structure and methods. I say categorically, and I believe that my view will be shared by every one of my hon. Friends, that when we say, as we do, that strong trade unions are the foundation of good collective bar-
  1280
  gaining, we also say, of course, that strength carries with it responsibility. Therefore, we have the right to call on the trade unions to adapt their structure and methods to equip themselves for the responsibilities of their new status.
  The Report suggested that they should be given corporate status and required to register, but it also called on them to tackle some of the urgent things that need to be tackled on the trade union side, such as the problems of multi-unionism in the work place, and to face up to the need for more full-time officials, to pay them better, train them more, train the shop stewards, and to revise the trade union rules, particularly in relation to membership, appeals procedure and shop stewards. This is an essential quid pro quo if we are to have a really healthy collective bargaining system.
  The Report, in proposing an Industrial Relations Bill, makes the central theme of a Bill not further legislative restraints but, first, the compulsory registration with my Department of collective agreements reached by companies above a certain size, and the establishment of the Industrial Relations Commission. I suggest that from now on we call it the C.I.R., as there is already one I.R.C. The Commission, on a reference from my Department, would be able to investigate and report on the problems arising from the registration of collective agreements, and to exercise an influence over them, as well as over the problem of the smaller companies, and to carry out inquiries into the general state of industrial relations in a factory or industry.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: Before we get branded with a C.I.R., will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that it is the abbreviation for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue?
  Mrs. Castle: I do not think that they are lovingly referred to around the country as the C.I.R. But there may be a difficulty that we are running out of initials, and perhaps we could have some suggestions during the debate.
  All this means that the Royal Commission's proposal is very different from that of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, above all, that of their document of which they are so proud, "Fair Deal at Work". I have said that the right hon. Gentleman accepts the analysis

  1281
  of the Report, but, even when accepting the need for the reform of collective bargaining, "Fair Deal at Work" gives it a much less important place. Hon. Members opposite approach industrial relations less as a system of negotiation of mutual benefit than as a battle of power relationships which should be much more comprehensively controlled by law.
  The whole tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that we must bring industrial relations within the comprehensive framework of civil law. It is suggested that here is some kind of powerful and irresponsible influence that must be contained. The right hon. Gentleman makes great virtue of the suggestion that, unlike the wicked Government, they are interested only in the civil law and not the criminal law. But he is misleading the House when he does not point out that employers already have civil remedies that they do not use. They do not use them for the simple reason that they are much more interested in the mutually important bargain and the process of negotiation. So why is there that emphasis on the comprehensive framework of civil law?
  Secondly, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, the suggestion that because it is civil law it will be of a different nature, leading to different outcomes and penalties, is a gross distortion of the facts. I was interested to note in reading the Conservative Party's document—I have studied it from cover to cover— that it faces up to the implications of its own civil penalties. It states:
  "Many people, including both those who oppose making agreements enforceable and those who accept it in principle, but have doubts about its practicability, ask the question, What would be the position if large numbers of employees strike in breach of agreement and reject the most vigorous efforts of their union to get a return to work. It would be impractical, they argue, to fine hundreds of individual strikers and imprison them if they refuse to pay."
  The document does not go on to say, "There could be no imprisonment under our proposals."
  The right hon. Gentleman knows that the ultimate sanction, even for a civil remedy, if the court is defied could be imprisonment. He knows that nobody wants to bring imprisonment into it if he can help it. But this is a distinction without a difference. The right hon. Gentleman says virtuously, "I am all
  1282
  for the civil remedy." He talks about the difference between civil and criminal remedies. We have had a great eulogy about Mr. Shonfield's reservation, and certainly it is a very well-argued and forceful document.
  Mr. Orme: Nonsense.
  Mrs. Castle: Give the man credit for having put his argument well. I do not accept it, but what does it involve? What is one of the main arguments of Mr. Shonfield when he asks how can we deal with restrictive practices. He says that the Industrial Relations Commission should have its own tribunal which should have power to deal with restrictive practices by forcing the parties to bargain in good faith and, if they fail, exacting a monetary penalty. This would be a criminal offence, because this would be a public authority. Therefore, there is no difference of kind, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. R. Carr: I am not a lawyer any more than the right hon. Lady is and I therefore hesitate to use legal jargon, but is there not this very big difference between the civil and criminal law? If we create a crime and we do not enforce the law, we bring the law into disrepute. If we establish a civil right and an individual or organisation chooses not to seek the last pound of flesh out of his or its civil right, as often happens, no harm is done to anybody.
  Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say, "We want a system for the enforcement of collective agreements" and then say, "There will not be any difficulty about it, because in the end the man with the civil right need not exact the penalty". He cannot evade the issue. He cannot say that our industrial relations system will continue in anarchy and chaos unless there is this comprehensive framework of civil law and then say that we need not worry because nobody need carry it out. The Donovan Report says that the civil remedies exist, but they are not exercised.
  It is because there is this distinction of emphasis between the Royal Commission and the Opposition that there has been such an outcry by many of their spokesmen against the Report.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury) rose—
  Mrs. Castle: I must get on; I have given way a lot.
  The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) wrote about the Report in the Sunday Telegraph a few days ago. "Blueprint for inaction", he called it. He said:
  "If there has been a worse report in recent years I have not read it."
  All that I can say is that if there has been a worse article in recent years I have not read that, either. The right hon. Gentleman sums up the complaint against the Report in this way:
  "by far the most important issue which is studied in the main report and in the notes of dissent is the question whether and if so to what extent collective agreements should be legally binding."
  He says that they should be. He goes on to say:
  "To this end the Tories propose to repeal section 4 of the Trade Union Act…. The Tory proposal is to make all collective agreements, including plant bargains, enforceable to the extent agreed by the parties—and why on earth should they not be?"
  On the face of it, that is completely reasonable. But, unfortunately, it shows a complete misunderstanding of the law, the effect of the repeal of Section 4 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, and of the Royal Commission's attitude, because under the present law, including Section 4, collective agreements between companies and unions could be made legally binding if the parties so wished. The plant bargains to which the right hon. Gentleman referred could be made legally binding at the moment that the parties wanted them to be so, because a company does not come within the legal definition of a trade union with which Section 4 of the 1871 Act deals.
  It is, therefore, complete nonsense for the Opposition to say that Section 4 is the greatest obstacle to the enforcement of contracts. The greatest obstacle to company and plant agreements is the unwillingness of the parties to make them legally binding. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that legally binding collective agreements should be imposed, but merely that the parties should be free to do that. They are free to do it. They do not do it because they prefer not to be legally bound. Only agreements between an employers' association and trade unions are prevented by Section 4(4) of the Act,
  1284
  because employers' associations are trade unions as defined in that Section.
  If Section 4 were to be repealed, therefore, it would be possible to make national agreements legally binding, just as plant agreements are now. But the right hon. Gentleman says that it is plant agreements in which he is interested. If the parties concerned decide not to make the agreements legally binding, we have not changed anything and we shall be back to exactly where we were. They would almost certainly not agree to make them binding, because that is what they have preferred to do in the case of plant bargains.
  I say to my hon. Friends who have been a little concerned about the Royal Commission's references to Section 4 of the 1871 Act that the Royal Commission was not concerned with this point in subsection (4). It was concerned with subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 4, which make agreements between union members on such matters as subscription payments or the provision of benefits legally unenforceable. Subsection (4) was not the Royal Commission's prime preoccupation in dealing with this matter.
  Mr. Orme: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is spelling out this point, because it is extremely important. Is there not a contradiction between the Report's interpretation and what is in the Conservative Party's pamphlet? That is what is causing the confusion.
  Mrs. Castle: After all the tremendous expression of outrage by the Opposition about the Royal Commission's Report, basically there is not very much difference. As I understand, neither of them says that collective agreements should be made legally enforceable, whether the parties want them to be or not. At the moment, plant bargains are legally enforceable if the parties wish them to be. All that the repeal of subsection (4) would do would be to make national agreements legally enforceable, if the parties wish.
  The position would still be broadly the same. It would be for the parties to decide. What I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman is that over a large field they have that freedom of decision and they do not use it in the way which he suggests because they prefer to be left with a more flexible and legally non-binding contract.
  Mr. R. Carr: There is, I think, genuine confusion in legal advice which has been given over a period of years about the technical effect of certain Statute repeals. I want to make clear what we are trying to do. The proposed technique of doing it may be a little unclear. We agree that under the existing law, agreements can be made binding in certain circumstances. We want to establish the same position as in other forms of contractual activity that when an agreement is entered into, it is binding unless one contracts out of it. There is a difference between contracting in and contracting out.
  Mrs. Castle: That is a significant change of emphasis. My reply to the right hon. Gentleman is that we should be dealing not with the theories, but with the realities. The reality of the moment is that it is clearly demonstrated by employers and unions that they do not wish to take advantage of their existing power to make collective agreements legally binding. Therefore, if we tell them that their agreement will be legally binding unless they specifically contract out of it, either they will specifically contract out of it, they will not enter into the collective agreement or they will be much slower to do so.
  The whole complaint of the Royal Commission, and certainly of us on this side, about the policy of right hon. and hon. Members opposite is that for three-quarters of the time they are chasing unrealisable myths, instead of getting down to the realities, because they still hold to the attitude that the trade union movement is somehow a licensed conspiracy against society and ought, therefore, to be controlled.
  I quote these examples to show how complex and controversial this whole subject is. I repeat that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West praised Mr. Shonfield's brilliant reservation, and yet it contains suggestions that the Conservative Party itself rejects. This proves that there is not one simple and straightforward legal remedy in this complicated subject. That is why the Government insist, and rightly, that there should be the most careful consideration and the fullest consultation with industry on all the suggestions which have been made in the Report for changes in trade union
  1286
  law before we rush into conclusions, White Papers and legislation.
  That is not because the Government regard the Report as a "Blueprint for inaction". On the contrary, we are acting on a whole range of matters which the Royal Commission considered to be far more vital than these legal points. While hon. Members opposite yearn for more penalties against strikers which experience shows that employers would never use, we are pressing ahead with the changes which can have real effect— those urgent and practical measures which, the right hon. Gentleman said, were needed to cure the British disease.
  We have in the Department of Employment and Productivity a body which is doing the work of the Productivity Board which, the right hon. Gentleman said, his party wanted to set up. With the help of the Department we are stimulating and encouraging the drawing up of those comprehensive and authoritative local collective agreements which can bring greater clarity, stability and productivity into collective bargaining. We are strengthening our industrial relations service and our research, as the Commission recommends.
  The industrial training boards are being expanded under the present Government as never before. We are giving new emphasis to women's training and the need for full acceptance of adult trainees in industry. I warmly welcome the Report's recommendation that training board grants should be used to help shop steward training, because this is highly relevant to the reform of collective bargaining and the negotiation of really effective productivity deals.
  We have already taken action along the lines suggested by the Commission. Last year my Central Training Council advised boards to include in their grant schemes provision for shop steward training, and a number of them have done so. Again, there is the question of dismissal procedures. It has always seemed wrong to me that the only safeguard which many workers have against unfair dismissal is a very limited protection at common law. A committee of my National Joint Advisory Council considered this matter last year and urged the extension of satisfactory voluntary internal procedures.

  1287
  The Committee asked my Department to review the position, and particularly the need for statutory provision in the light of the Royal Commission's Report and of the progress made in establishing voluntary procedures. This is linked with the question of the Royal Commission's recommendation for the establishment of labour tribunals with wide jurisdiction over disputes between the employer and the individual employee. The review of these matters is being pressed ahead.
  Therefore, while I cannot tell the House when and in what form we will legislate, I can tell hon. Members that the Government have wasted no time in proceeding with the vital elements in the Commission's recommendations and Report. There is a whole range of activities vital to the improvement of our industrial relations on which we are already engaged. I am glad that the Royal Commission has so unequivocally endorsed their necessity. Its Report confirms my belief that the Department of Employment and Productivity, while continuing to exercise all its traditional functions, must develop, and is well equipped to develop, a more positive function of service to industrial efficiency and economic growth.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: What the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State said about the question of penal sanctions rather put me in mind of Satan peddling religious tracts, because for the last few weeks we have been arguing about her deliberate action to deal with trade unionists, not in the civil courts, but under the criminal law. Therefore, it comes ill for her to suggest that in our policy we aim to send people to prison.
  I have always believed that there were two main reasons for setting up a Royal Commission. The first is the obvious one of ascertaining facts which are not already known. The second is to put off for about three years action which one knows in one's heart should be taken now. I believe that the Royal Commission was set up for the second reason. It is time that the Government started to take action even on the very few recommendations of substance which the Royal Commission makes.
  1288
  Not many facts which we did not know before emerge even from close scrutiny of the Report, although it is obvious that their detail is much greater than we were aware. One of the main facts which the Royal Commission has emphasised again is that over 95 per cent. of strikes are unofficial. That is a situation which can give no satisfaction to anyone in any part of the House. Outside the House, it certainly gives no satisfaction to national executive committees of trade unions, or, indeed, to national officers or anyone who is working in the service of a trade union, to know that the vast majority of man-hours which are lost in strikes are the result of completely unofficial action.
  Mr. James Hamilton: A great deal has been said by both Front Bench speakers and the hon. Gentleman about unofficial strikes. Is he aware— and I speak as a member of the national executive of a trade union—that in many cases unofficial action is made official by the executive councils of unions? Would he further accept that in many cases employers must bear a share of the responsibility for what has happened, and not merely the men?
  Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the blame should not be laid merely at the door of trade unionists. I was about to say that. Having repeated the Royal Commission's remarks on this issue, I had intended to analyse this state of affairs in an effort to discover why this situation obtains and how it can be changed.
  I accept, from my experience, that many unofficial disputes need not have happened had employers or their representatives lower down the scale of management exercised common sense or normal decency. I am not seeking to show that every unofficial strike is necessarily bad or is caused by the men. I accept that one must consider the whole basis on which these things arise. Be that as it may, we have a large number of unofficial strikes.
  The hon. Gentleman also makes a valid point in saying that some unofficial strikes begin as unofficial walkouts and then, after being considered by national executives, gain official recognition. The fact remains that the unofficial strike has exactly the same effect as any unofficial

  1289
  action which does not receive official recognition. In other words, the quick walkout of people, the shock to management and the resultant effect on employment must be compared with the normal official action when one has an idea of what is likely to take place and when management has an opportunity to adapt itself to the circumstances that may arise.
  The Royal Commission refers to the impact on management of unofficial strikes, and in paragraph 413 makes this important observation:
  "It is in fact only when the impact on managements of unofficial strikes and other forms of unofficial action is taken into account that their gravity becomes apparent. Such action may face a manager with a sudden and acute dilemma. He may be under severe pressure from customers to produce goods or materials by a particular deadline, and in a competitive market such pressure is not easy to resist … But it is not surprising if managers sometimes make unwise concessions which secure peace for the time being at the cost of storing up trouble for the future."
  This shows that unofficial action has a greater impact on management, plant and those engaged in the industry concerned. It lends emphasis to the fact that we must do something to put this state of affairs right.
  The Royal Commission tries to give its solutions to this problem by stating, for example, in paragraph 454:
  "By far the most important part in remedying the problem of unofficial strikes and other forms of unofficial action will, however, be played by reforming the institutions of whose defects they are a symptom."
  That paragraph goes on:
  "Unofficial strikes are, above all, the result of the inadequate conduct of industrial relations at company and plant level."
  We accept that. We also accept that if all these institutions were perfect, there would no longer be any need for unofficial or even official action.
  The paragraph continues:
  "They will persist so long as companies pay inadequate attention to their pay structures and personnel policies and the methods of negotiation adopted at the workplace remain in their present chaotic state. They will also persist so long as neither employers nor trade unions are willing adequately to recognise, define and control the part played by shop stewards in our collective bargaining system."
  This is the Commission's solution to this major problem; although it goes on to suggest, for good measure, the estab-
  1290
  lishment of an industrial relations commission. The right hon. Lady suggested that because we are running out of initials, this body should be called the C.I.R., as we already have the I.R.C. I suggest that we already have too many commissions and committees running our lives. Perhaps we should try to reduce their number instead of merely shuffling their initials.
  It appears that this industrial relations commission will be given the job of seeking collective agreements among large companies, and then going on to deal with smaller companieis. The difficulty is that the Commission makes it clear that this body should not be able to exert any penalties for non-compliance, and this would mean it being denied most of the point of its inception.
  In paragraph 480, the Commission goes into the whole question of the responsibility of a union for its members. This has always been an arguable point, mainly because many people say, "While we are representatives of a trade union and while we meet management from time to time, if groups of our members decide to take even unconstitutional action, it is not really up to us to put ourselves out too much to try to impress on these men the fact that they should go back to work and reduce the damage being caused to the industry concerned or the economy."
  The Royal Commission is luke-warm on this point and says that at least the trade unions should guarantee the good behaviour of their members. This interesting observation is made in paragraph 482:
  "Such a measure could be contemplated only if it was likely to result in a rapid diminution in the number of unofficial strikes."
  Why? We have had unofficial strikes for a long time. Is it not a fact that their number is increasing rather than decreasing? If, by taking this action, we could, at least in the long-term, reduce the number of unofficial strikes, would not such a plan be worth while? Why should one act only if one believes that the result would be an immediate reduction in unofficial action?
  I welcome the sections of the Report dealing with work groups and union government. The chapter points to the problems which arise with branches of unions, and suggests that many more branches

  1291
  should be upon a plant basis rather than a residential basis. It also points out that many unions do not formally recognise the position of shop stewards, and lays down a suggested way in which the election, conduct and area of jurisdiction of shop stewards can be properly dealt with.
  The carrying out of these suggestions would prevent the growth of groups of shop stewards who become more powerful than their national executive. This was exemplified in the Briggs dispute, some years ago, where a group of men with no responsibility were able to exercise considerable power over their fellow members. Unions would be well advised to ascertain whether or not their rules deal with the points made by the Commission.
  In paragraph 698, in pointing out what changes should be made, the Royal Commission says:
  "If rules are to be really satisfactory they much reach a far higher standard than it would be right or practicable to prescribe by law."
  I question that sentiment. If such rules are thought to be of a reasonably minimum standard, why should not the registrar require as a condition of registration that those rules should be in the rule book of the union? If the registrar were given power to require the union to satisfy him that the rules governing this section and others were such that the union was capable of registration, the necessity of writing specifically into an Act of Parliament the way in which shop stewards shall be elected and how they shall operate would be avoided.
  I see no reason why the power of the registrar should not be exercised where the Commission suggests the full registration of trade unions. I disagree with their point about changes in the law. The Royal Commission does not believe that much basic change in the law is necessary. It states, in paragraph 754:
  "We are, however, also much concerned with the need for simplification of the present law and with measures which should be taken to make the law more easily accessible and understandable."
  This is perfectly legitimate. As the Commission points out, laws have been introduced piecemeal, and often more on a negative than a positive basis. They
  1292
  have been brought in to make certain that trade unionists have not been jeopardised by the common law. The laws affecting trade unions which have been passed over 100 years must need a great deal of attention. There are those who say that trade unions now are in an entirely different position from the position they were in at the turn of the century, or when the 1906 Act gave them special exemptions. My view is that unions should continue to enjoy those exemptions but that, in return, they should accept certain obligations.
  The right hon. Lady said that one cannot expect rights unless one is prepared to accept obligations. The fact that they cannot be sued for breach of contract does not give trade unions a licence to damage anyone else. Therefore, there must be a system of registration conditional upon rules and standards of conduct, and any union failing to conform should not enjoy the exemptions. Similarly, small groups of dissidents acting contrary to union policy should also lose their exemption.
  The Commission, in paragraph 800, deals with exemptions, and says:
  "A majority of the Commission … think that such immunity is no longer necessary or desirable in such circumstances. In order to avoid a breach of their contracts most employees will need to do no more than give a week's notice of their intention to cease work; and it would not seem unreasonable to us that they should do so. If the persons who are organising the employees feel for some reason that the protection of section 3 is vital to them, they can secure it by framing a constitution for themselves with the requisite objects and rules and register themselves as a trade union."
  This puts the matter into the right perspective. The Commission is saying that all those engaged in industry, in whichever part of industry they may be engaged, should be prepared to bargain and to keep their part of the bargain; if they do not, or if they take action which is contrary to their union's policy, then they will lose the benefits they enjoy under the 1906 Act. On the other hand, if they disagree with their union executive and still insist that they shall take unofficial action, then they shall give to their employer the notice that they would expect their employer to give to them if he were dispensing with their services. Again, that is a balance, and a proper bargain made and kept.

  1293
  It cannot be emphasised enough that, if workers have to give that sort of notice, at least the union executive or national officer concerned knows of the dispute and knows that there is likely to be a walk-out before it happens. In so many instances today they do not know until it occurs. Frequently, one hears of a national officer of a trade union having to go in where the men have already walked out, where tempers are high, where conditions have hardened and where, in most cases, the employer will refuse even to discuss the case until the men return to work. A different situation faces a national officer who enters a company's premises when the men have given notice that they intend to strike. That is quite different from a situation in which they have already walked out of the workshop. That is a very important point which must be borne in mind.
  There are a great many points in the Report, but I know that other hon. Members want to address the House, so I will content myself with the final comment that I think that the Commission is to be commended on the very close and detailed work which it has done in assessing the problem. Unfortunately, its suggested solution does not begin to meet the problem.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: I rise to take part in this debate as one who has been a member of a trade union for 50 years this year. I think that in my time I have done most of the things that trade unionists set out to do.
  I think that I might best use the time at my disposal in setting out an even broader background than the Commission has done. I think that the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) tended to think that it was possible to compare the British trade union movement with similar movements abroad. But I have looked at trade union movements in various parts of the world. Taking the Swedish movement, for example, authority does not come from the State. It comes from the movement itself. It comes from that country's equivalent to the T.U.C. That body exercises authority. Individual unions cannot take strike action without its permission, and that is well enshrined
  1294
  in their understanding. I have looked at the trade union movement in East Germany, such as it is. As one would expect, it is part of the Communist apparatus. In Spain, where the Syndicates have been developed, one finds the trade unions and employers in one indissoluble movement. They move together. But if one goes to what is comparable to their trades union congress, one hears trade union representatives voicing the same sort of aspirations as we do here. There seems to be almost an international vocabulary.
  In the United States of America, everything is done at plant level, as we hear so often. However, that is hardly surprising, in view of the size of the problem there. General Motors, for example, has a complete set-up of its own, as does Fords. When the unions do battle in the United States, they set about one plant. They demand their rises, they get what they want, and immediately they swing round on the next plant and so use one against the other. All this is allied to the Taft-Hartley legislation.
  On the other hand, when one looks at the more primitive forms of trade unionism in Africa, again that is all part of the national consciousness.
  The British trade union movement is now an estate of the Realm, in so far as an estate of the Realm may be defined as an organisation which can give or withhold supplies. It is as British as anything can be. It is as British in its way as the Conservative Party.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Much more.
  Mr. Pannell: That may be so. After all, its necessity springs from the actions of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are the sinners come to repentance. They are the traditional enemies of the trade union movement. We discussed the fate of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders yesterday. We would do better to remember that the British trade union movement too has its battle honours. It has Featherstone, Tolpuddle, the dockers' tanner, Tonypandy.
  In my lifetime, I can remember a debate—[Interruption.] I do not want the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) to come into this, because he

  1295
  knows nothing about anything. I am addressing my remarks to the right hon. Member for Mitcham. If he wants a striking example of how far we have come, may I remind him that in 1923 this House debated the engineers' lockout in which, in the last year of my apprenticeship, my indentures were broken. He will find that the Government of the day, a Conservative Government, opposed intervening in the dispute. It was over what was known as managerial functions, which was merely the idea of deciding which men should man certain machines. As a result, we were locked out for four months. It brought down our wages from £4 12s. to £3 within three months after. If the right hon. Gentleman read the arguments used by the Conservative spokesmen at that time, he would not blush with shame. He would turn white.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the attitudes of the nineteenth century, but it does not go as far back as that. We are up against the attitudes of the 1930s. When I look at right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and remember some of my earlier life in the trade union movement, I like to be just to them, but I always tinge justice with memory.
  We are speaking of the British trade union movement, and it does not advance any study of the Commission's Report to cast round in other countries whose histories are different, who did not have the Industrial Revolution, and who do not know how we grew up.
  My own union goes back to about 1780, to the old Millwrights' Society. Then came the Steam Engine Makers, in 1826, followed by the old A.S.E. of 1850. Then came the Amalgamated Engineering Union of 1920, and now we have become linked with the Foundry Workers. So one sees the evolution. Members of the union were known as the natural aristocrats of labour. I may say that we did not give ourselves that title. Now we have taken women into membership and, of course, we believe in the doctrine of equal pay and have pioneered all these ideas.
  It is worth while remembering that we grew out of the Industrial Revolution, and may I remind hon. Members that the cradle of the Industrial Revolution geographically has my constituency at its heart. It all began with the district
  1296
  unions, which grew and gradually amalgamated into national unions. As a result, the trade union movement has been in a state of flux and growth ever since.
  If one wants to fix the point from which it all began, the great name of Ernest Bevin looms over this assembly today. He was the greatest of all the Ministers of Labour, because he made it an integral part of his Ministry during the last war that men were an end in themselves. He refused to have the Ministry of Labour subordinated to Production. I am not sure that it is altogether a good idea to give the department its new high-faluting title, so getting away from the old ideas, and that is about the only point on which I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter). These ideas have gradually impinged upon the relationship and consciousness of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is tinged by the fact that they are making a wider electoral appeal. They boast that they have 4 million trade unionist supporters in the country, though they can only produce one in the House.
  Mr. Mawby: Two.
  Mr. Pannell: Where is the other one? We have gradually come to this point and we now have a Labour Government back in power.
  The right hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), at the beginning of his long speech, said that he thought the Royal Commission was set up merely to procrastinate with this problem. I find that rather difficult to believe, because his speech was made up of quotations, as though he was trying to instruct hon. Gentlemen opposite on what it was all about.
  I do not want to make a long speech, with so many hon. Members wishing to speak, but I should like to quote one passage from the Report. It will probably set a line of thought with which my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orrne) will not necessarily agree, but I think we can agree it is significant. On page 38, under "Signs of Change", the Report states:
  "Several developments in recent years suggest a growing dissatisfaction with the system of industrial relations described in the

  1297
  previous chapter, and a growing desire for change.
  157. The first of these is the development of incomes policy. Sooner or later full employment leads to incomes policy. Rising or full employment is almost always accompanied by increases in pay which outstrip any rise in productivity, and therefore lead to higher costs and higher prices."
  Therefore, this Report must be read and integrated with the general drive that comes from both sides. I do not want to get into difficulties with this side of the House. It is all part of how the national cake is shared out, how people get what they are entitled to and how we resolve our balance of payments.
  I am never misled by what the Conservative Party say in opposition. After all, I know the sort of fire and slaughter that they breathed when in Government. They were always threatening to do something to the trade union movement. However mild the right hon. Member for Mitcham might have appeared this afternoon, he knows that it would not be difficult for me to quote a great many of his colleagues on the dire things that would befall the trade union movement if they got the opportunity to deal with it again. I am sorry, but the animal is coo big for them. Their attitude is, "If you cannot lick them, join them", so consequently they want their 4 million trade union vote.
  I am glad that we are having this debate today, not because it allows me to make this speech, but because this is one of the subjects which I think can proceed to legislation. One of the great difficulties of new Members of the House is that they often want from this place something it cannot give, which is participation in legislation. I hope when my right hon. Friend considers the consultations that will take place with the C.B.I., which was well represented on the Commission, and the T.U.C., which was also well represented on the Commission she will think it might be a good idea to give full weight to the trade union group of the Parliamentary Labour Party which is, after all, the political expression of the trade union movement. There are 150 on this side as against two on the other side.
  The White Paper need not necessarily be the last word. We can argue about that. I had an unhealthy feeling when I listened to the Front Bench speech that this debate had taken place too early—
  1298
  probably before a lot of hon. Members have read the Commission's Report anyway.
  The right hon. Member for Mitcham made a great point about 95 per cent. of strikes being unofficial or unpredictable. I do not know which it was. I can only say that the best strikes I have taken part in have always been unofficial strikes. They have been the sort of things which sprung from an instant injustice. Perhaps the management has been arguing quite arbitrarily and there has been a strike there and then. I can think of some strikes which have settled a grievance in a couple of hours.
  A lot will be said about the Royal Commission's Report. Some will say that the remedies proposed are completely inadequate. I do not know what remedies are wanted in this kind of business. I have always taken the line, concerning prices and incomes policy, that we cannot lay on the trade unions the job of enforcing an incomes policy. It has to come from the State. I hope that we shall see trade in such a state that prices and incomes policies are unnecessary to be inflicted by the central Government.
  The debate this afternoon is a kind of curtain raiser. In considering where we are going, I think that we should remember where we have come from. We are speaking about one of the great movements of the world, a movement that was initiated and pioneered by people in this country associated with some of our greatest names. It is a movement which grew up and waxed strong, despite a great deal of suffering and victimisation. It waxed strong in the teeth of the opposition and even the cruelty to and imprisonment of people whose successors now sit on the benches opposite.
  Mr. R. Carr Mr. R. Carr rose—
  Mr. Pannell: This is not a matter of evoking anything old. I was glad to note the air of humility with which the right hon. Member for Mitcham came to the Box this afternoon to indicate that we can come together to recognise the trade union movement as it is—one of the great contributory factors to the prosperity and future of this country.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. David Mitchell: While I join with the right hon. Member

  1299
  for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) in his hope that the Government's prices and incomes policies will not have to be enforced in the way he described, I am sure he will understand if I do not follow him in going back to the Tolpuddle Martyrs or to the early experiences of his youth.
  I strongly resist the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the modern Conservative Party is in any way opposed to the trade union movement. If any proof is needed, let the right hon. Gentleman take the document "Fair Deal at Work", which has been mentioned during the debate, and he will see the truth of what I am saying.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, West dwelt, of course, on the founding of the union of which he is a member. I could equally dwell on and talk about the foundation of the Transport and General Workers Union, of which I was a member for a number of years. However, I will not do so. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is at the moment pursuing the manual work with which most of his union colleagues are associated. Perhaps he will understand if I say that I felt it right not to continue to be a member of a manual union when I was no longer engaged in those activities.
  First, I should like to add my tribute to those which have been paid to Lord Donovan and the members of the Royal Commission. I do not suppose that the Commission's work has been made any easier by the fact that the protagonists were also members of it. In terms of Royal Commissions, it has been almost unique, because Royal Commissions are usually well above and well away from the arena in which fights take place over the matters being examined.
  I cannot cover the whole Report, but I would draw attention to three main causes of lost production and put one or two specific questions to the Minister. The causes of lost production to which I wish to refer are strikes, restrictive practices and accidents at work.
  Although it is not part of the Royal Commission's Report, it gives us a sense of proportion when we realise just how much greater is the number of days lost through accidents at work than those
  1300
  lost through industrial disputes. If one needs any reminder of it, a Written Answer on 3rd July brings the point home very forcefully.
  Perhaps I might now consider some strikes and their causes, and refer particularly to how much more damaging they are in this country where we are increasingly turning over to assembly line techniques. It is necessary for there to be a strike only in one place which holds up one component for the effect to be felt right the way down the line. The whole basis of production and productivity is thrown out of gear. The bare statistics of the number of days lost do not show the whole picture of just how damaging it is to this country's ability to compete in world markets while there is this unpredictability about when strikes are going to take place. I do not believe that there is any universal panacea to eliminate strikes, but I think it is particularly valuable that the Commission analysed the causes of strikes, and where the causes are different to point out that the solutions to them may also be different.
  I should like to mention one or two which seem particularly important. I consider them not in the sequence of the severity of damage which they do, but in what seems to me to be a more natural sequence.
  First, there is the question of union recognition. It is an extraordinary fact that this question of union recognition gives rise to 30 per cent. of the cases in which the Ministry of Labour is brought in to conciliate. In my constituency at the firm of Bayham Engineering there has been a strike by the Amalgamated Engineering Union over this question of union recognition. The sequence of events is frequently that the union claims to have a large number of members in a factory and asks the management to recognise it for the purpose of negotiating on behalf of those members.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Has the hon. Gentleman prevailed on the management in that case to recognise the union concerned?
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has asked a question which is not strictly relevant to the point I was making, but I shall, nevertheless, answer him. I

  1301
  offered to place myself at the disposal of both the union and the management if I could be of any help in finding a solution, but it became clear very rapidly that a solution could not be found. The Ministry of Labour's conciliators, too, were unable to find a solution. That is a good example of the sort of thing about which I am talking.
  What happens is that the union claims that it has many members in a factory, the management doubts it, and the matter is then put to issue by a strike. What I am suggestting is that that is the wrong way to set about dealing with the matter. I take the view that in this day and age it should be possible to solve that kind of issue by much more civilised means, by allowing those who work in the factory to have a free vote on whether they wish the union to represent them. I believe that this is the right, modern and civilised way of dealing with such a problem, and I trust that the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) agrees with that view.
  The second cause I would mention is that if inter-union demarcation disputes. I believe that the situation could be eased considerably by giving unions corporate status and allowing them to make legally binding agreements between themselves. I shall return to this in a moment.
  On page 101 of the Report there is a valuable table showing the causes of industrial disputes. I refer next to working arrangements because, after wages, these are the largest single cause of disputes. More than half these disputes are protests against change. This is significant, because it suggests that there is a lack of understanding, a lack of explanation, a lack of consultation and a failure by the management to discuss changes before they are introduced with those who will be effected by them. I believe that a great deal more can be done by joint consultation to ease this problem.
  Dismissals account for about 15 per cent. of strikes. Here, again, surely there is a more modern, more civilised and more sensible way of dealing with the problem of dismissals than by going on strike, and certainly one which is preferable to an instantaneous strike which takes place before union officials have had time to discuss the matter. Surely the answer is to refer the dispute to an
  1302
  independent body which can decide whether the dismissal is just or unjust.
  Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that many of these disputes take place because employers, without due notice or discussion with the workers, dismiss a group of men or a shop steward? The reaction of the workers is immediate. They know that the only way in which they can defend their fellow workers is by taking immediate action. I suggest that the remedy lies with the employers stopping that sort of nonsense.
  Mr. Mitchell: That is the sort of thing that one can argue across the Floor of the Chamber, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will make his contribution to the debate shortly. The point I am making is quite simply that there should be a more civilised and proper way in which to settle such an issue other than striking over it.
  I am aware that hon. Members, and Members on both sides of industry, are deeply conscious of the fact that once bargains are made they should be stuck to. I have to admit that it was for me a substantial eye-opener when, as a member of the T.G.W.U., I attended its summer school and heard one of the national officials lamming into the men in a way which I would not have believed possible if I had not heard it. He was talking about agreements being made by the union and those agreements not being kept by its members. I am therefore well aware of just how much the unions themselves wish their members to keep agreements once they have been made.
  I wish to make two pleas. The first is that we should not dismiss too lightly the suggestion of automatic sanctions about which the Donovan Report talks, because Lord Donovan in his addendum, section 12, suggests that there might be circumstances in which those who breach a contract might set at risk the advantages which they were expecting to get from it. It may be that if there was a limitation on the severity of the loss of fringe benefits involved this would be useful in industrial relations.
  Enforceability would not be a solution to all our troubles. Certainly it should not be applied so that all contracts are enforceable, but I see nothing in the Donovan Report which suggests that if the

  1303
  parties to a contract agree it should not be binding. Are agreements enforceable now, or not? The right hon. Lady indicated that although agreements between one union and another are not enforceable, agreements between one union and an employer are.
  On the other hand, in its written evidence to the Royal Commission, the Ministry of Labour states, on page 80, section 26:
  "As has been pointed out the contracts entered into between employers' associations and trade unions (and probably the contracts entered into between single employers and trade unions) are not legally enforceable in this country ".
  That appears to be in direct contradiction to what the Minister said in her opening speech. I therefore ask whatever Minister is to wind up to clarify this plain discrepancy between the indication given by the Minister and the indication in the written evidence of the Ministry of Labour.
  The loss of productive power which this country suffers as a result of restrictive practices has been shown by the Donovan Report and other reports to be far too serious to be glossed over as a matter of little or no importance. The Donovan Commission's findings about restriction of entry are immensely valuable. Demarcation disputes may be substantially reduced if trade unions can make binding agreements between each other, so that instead of a dispute having to be settled by a strike or by the employer having to decide how the work should be allocated, and a strike ensuing against his decision, this matter can be decided by more civilised, modern and sensible means.
  The question of over-manning and all that goes with it should be held up to the searchlight of a productivity board, or some other independent agency. Looking back to the 1930s, as several hon. Members have done, one can understand how so many restrictive practices grew up. It is possible to understand a person's supporting a practice which prevented a piece of new machinery being installed, thereby depriving a man of a job, in the days when unemployment was between 1 million and 3 million, but in these days it merely holds back the productive power and standard of living of British industrial workers. I hope that
  1304
  this aspect of the Report's spotlight will be picked on by the Minister, and that Government action will follow.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. Ben Ford: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) will forgive me if I do not follow him. Hon. Members opposite are becoming obsessed with the subject of unofficial strikes. I hope that the debate will not be entirely orientated around this matter because the Report covers a much wider field, which is worthy of discussion. Rather than talking about strikes and their prevention we ought to consider the causes of bad industrial relations.
  Much emphasis has been laid on the number of unofficial strikes. I remember examining this subject one year for the purpose of a discussion, and I discovered that in that year, although 3 million working days had been lost as a result of all strikes—official and unofficial—no fewer than 250 million working days had been lost as a result of absence through illness and accident. We would be far better occupied discussing an occupation health service and the cause and prevention of bronchitis than in concerning ourselves with punitive measures against unofficial strikers. Many unofficial strikes are quite justified.
  Mention has been made of the policy of the Opposition, as embodied in its purple booklet. I do not know whether the colour is symbolic. I am a trade unionist of some standing—I shall return to that later—and I can tell hon. Members opposite that no matter how modestly, sincerely and gently the series of proposals has been put forward by spokesmen of hon. Members opposite, if, in the remote event of their coming to power in the next few years and attempting to put these into effect they will be heading for the biggest industrial shambles that this country has ever seen. Their proposals will be resisted to the death by the trade union movement.
  I generally welcome the Report and I add my voice to that of the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) in regretting that no member of the Royal Commission was representative of the voice of the shop floor. The Royal Commission would have been far better served —and its Report would have been a

  1305
  better document—if there had been such a person on it. Nevertheless, the Report is extremely informative, even if it is not characterised by bold, sweeping and incisive recommendations concerning the future of the trade union movement and the employers' federations. Much painstaking work has been carried out, resulting in a Report which will become a standard work of reference to anybody with the remotest interest in labour relations.
  I want to deal with two matters raised in the Report—the question of multi-unionism and the proposal for the establishment of an Industrial Relations Commission. In answer to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend, I wonder whether we might not refer to it as a Permanent Industrial Relations Commission, thus bringing about the initials P.I.R.C, which has obvious connotations in many parts of industry.
  I can claim certain qualifications for taking part in this debate, and I must declare an interest. Together with my right hon. Friend, I am a member of an engineering trade union—the A.E.F.—and for about nine years I was a convener of shop stewards and secretary of a shop stewards' committee in a large engineering establishment employing about 10,000 workers. I had an opportunity to study industry and its operation at all levels. I was also a member of one of the dreaded combine committees which have been mentioned. Incidentally, this occupation provides some of the best possible training for a Member of Parliament. If ever anyone wants to learn how to win friends and influence people he should become a convener of shop stewards.
  The problem of multi-unionism must be dealt with fairly soon. I agree with the Report that it is virtually impossible for the Government to interfere directly in these matters, but it might be possible to facilitate mergers between unions over and above the provisions of the 1964 Act. I refer to assistance in the form of financial guarantees or subventions in respect of pension funds, especially where, for very good reasons, certain officials choose to retire early. Such payments would be justifiable as, for instance, the assistance given by the Industrial Re-organisation Corporation to engender rationalisation in the structure of industry.
  1306
  I was fortunate, in so far as that it was the custom of my shop stewards to elect one convenor to represent all unions within the establishment. This was a convenient arrangement, but, in many cases, each group of shop stewards in a factory or on a site elects a convenor or chief steward for each union; this obviously makes for a cumbersome negotiating procedure.
  In passing, I would mention that the convenor or chief steward is one of the key men in industry. I would press a very strong claim that the phrase most common in industry, particularly engineering, is, "Send for the convener". Yet in trade union rule books and collective agreements, the overall convener does not exist. This arises in many cases from a reluctance of trade union leaders to delegate powers to the lower levels of the organisation. This must be corrected.
  It is increasingly obvious, as the complexity of industrial processes and products increases, that the man on the spot is best able to deal with any situation which arises. The convener is often engaged solely on duties arising from his office, but in most cases he forfeits any prospect of advancement, particularly financially. I would, therefore, urge employers and unions to regularise his position and at the same time strongly endorse the recommendations of the Report in paragraph 696 to 699.
  Consideration of the position of shop stewards in industry leads us on to plant bargaining. The conclusions of the Commission in this respect are summarised in paragraphs 1019 to 1026, and cannot be too strongly emphasised nor too quickly implemented. I remember, in about 1962, submitting proposals to my firm which resulted in a complete revision of basic rates, the introduction of a merit rating scheme and incorporating substantial immediate and potential wages increases. The prices and incomes policy is, in this respect, "old hat"; many of us at the grass roots were incorporating productivity into our agreements years ago. In my boundless generosity, I even allowed a payments-by-results scheme to be introduced in the maintenance department—
  Mr. Heffer: They do not understand.
  Mr. Ford: No, hon. Members opposite would not know; one cannot work a payments-by-results system in a maintenance department.

  1307
  I had a thick file of agreements upon these and many other matters, which more directly affected wages and conditions than the national agreements, which merely provided a framework within which to operate. This is the context in which I would endorse the Report's recommendations that there should be national agreements. These are very relevant in certain fields, but there should be a devolution to plant bargaining and the shop stewards should be properly incorporated in the bargaining machinery. If necessary, in establishments of a certain size, the senior shop stewards or convenors should be properly organised and perhaps paid half and half with their position guaranteed both by the unions and by the employers.
  To achieve our aim of controlled expansion, we must accept some regulation over incomes. If we do not, we do not accept the need for a planned society. One cannot control prices, profits, consumption and so on without controlling incomes. If we are not prepared to face this, then we endorse the laissez-faire system of untrammelled collective bargaining in which the strong benefit at the expense of the weak. I understand that some may purport to identify sinister intentions behind the recommendations to set up an Industrial Relations Commission, and think that it would become an extension of machinery for the control of wages and so on—
  Mr. Orme: That is what it says.
  Mr. Ford: In my opinion, these are false assumptions, because the Report makes it clear that the primary duty of the Commission would be to promote harmonious industrial relations and provide an independent court of appeal on procedural matters, not forgetting, of course, that these matters often involve the recognition of the right to organise into unions and that it is proposed that the Commission should have power to investigate problems arising out of the non-recognition of unions. The registration of agreements would certainly provide a great deal of information which would enable the relevant agencies to establish fair and common practices covering most workers and to turn the spotlight on those who have not been playing the game.
  1308
  Despite what I have said, however, I would remind the Under-Secretary of the pledge in the Labour Party's 1964 manifesto. On 12th April, 1964, I put down a Question to the then Minister of Labour asking whether he would
  "…introduce legislation providing for all workers the right to trade union representation and proper safeguards against arbitrary dismissal."
  The Minister replied:
  "I think the right of trade union representation and safeguards against arbitrary dismissal are both extremely important. I would hope that the first will be one of the subjects considered by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations. I am appointing a Committee of my National Joint Advisory Council to study the second. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to introduce legislation now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th April 1965; Vol. 710, c. 931.]
  Now, we have the Report of the Royal Commission and the committee of the Advisory Council has had two years to consider its findings on the other matter. I would, therefore, strongly urge my hon. Friend that now is the appropriate time to introduce legislation. I should be most disappointed if this matter is not mentioned in the White Paper, perhaps towards the end of the year.
  We have heard very little about employers' organisations. I suppose that all things are perfect in a perfect world on the other side of the House, but some of us have had continuous contact with these organisations over a number of years. I sometimes ask myself, who is the employer these days? It is difficult to identify the entreprêneur standing with his foot on the neck of the worker trying to wring the last drop of sweat and the last halfpenny out of him. I have concluded that, in many cases, the employer is characterised by the director of the association sitting across the negotiating table from us. One must remember that, in this salubrious age, even managing directors and chairmen of companies are hired and fired from time to time.
  I suppose that it is in the nature of things that employers' organisations are structurally more up to date than trade unions, but the Report refers specifically to the attitudes of employers which are often embodied in the utterances of their organisations. There is no doubt that many employers are still rabidly antiunion, and one of the greatest divisive

  1309
  factors in industry is the division which is perpetuated between workers and staff and different conditions given to each by employers. I am convinced that this is perpetuated in some cases on the principle "divide and rule". Who can have a happy relationship in industry when a young girl of 15 or 16 can join an organisation and, within six months, be entitled to a number of privileges, such as full sickness pay and so on, to which her father, who has been on the shop floor in the same establishment for 40 years is not entitled? These are some of the things which can be changed and which rest largely in the hands of the employers. If the employers' organisations claim to be progressive, they can do something about this.
  I broadly welcome the Report. I think that it will set the style for many years to come and set the pace for discussions on industrial relations. I emphasise that rather than attempt to legislate industrial action out of existence, which seems to be the idea, judging from some utterances from hon. Members opposite, the Report realistically intends to deal with causes. That is what we should do. It is the only sensible course. If we cast our minds back to the strike of the Asturian miners, we remember that even General Franco could not deal with 30,000 miners on strike. There is an object lesson somewhere there. If we approach these matters with good will and with neither side having a chip on its shoulder some very great advances can be made to the benefit of all sections of society.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Perhaps it is because the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) and I both represent several communities with low wages but very few strikes that I very much agree with him when he says that the Donovan Report should not be discussed mainly or primarily in terms of strikes. What is far more important about a vast improvement in industrial relations is the enormous increase which that would create in take-home pay, job satisfaction, personal health and the rapid growth of our corporate national wealth. It is in that positive sense that I want to join in this debate.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mitchum (Mr. R. Carr), in explaining
  1310
  the Conservative Opposition's choice of this subject for debate, described the debate as preliminary. He would have done well to have described it as premature, because I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and others who have indicated that in their constituencies there clearly has just not been time for many local trade union branches to apply themselves to this massive Report and make their representations to their own Member of Parliament. It is a pity that we have not waited for that sort of democratic process to get into operation.
  I dwell on this point because I have sensed from the Press a real danger that the findings of this extremely painstaking and conscientious Commission may be swept away on a wave of public impatience because they do not provide an easy, semi-automatic answer to a series of extremely troublesome problems. The work of the Commission has produced something highly subtle and extremely detailed, but it has also thrown some much needed light on what has previously been very obscure. I will give only one example of this side of their approach.
  It seems to me, for example, that the Commission has cleared up, once and for all, the old bogey about the effect of Section 4 of the Trade Union Act, 1871. With respect, I do not think that even the Minister gave full justice to the clarity of the Commission's findings, because whereas we have often been told that this Section is very largely responsible for the lack of binding force on agreements between employers and unions, the Commission speaks very clearly on what has previously been thought to be a highly intricate legal matter. In paragraph 470, the Report states:
  "There is in fact nothing in the law to prevent employers or their associations and trades unions from giving legal force to their agreements."
  The paragraph adds:
  "That it does not happen is not, as we have already said, due to the law. It is due to the intention of the parties themselves."
  So any reforming policy which puts practically at the head of the list the repeal of this Section is dealing with trifles.
  The Commission faced a quite appalling task, and a task which should not have been allowed to accumulate during

  1311
  all the years since the war. The appalling state of industrial relations in many parts of British industry is not a case of grave social blight which can only be removed by action of this House. It is not one of those social evils of the type on which we have spent some time debating in the last year or two, where those who are suffering from that particular evil have to look to Parliament for release.
  Industrial relations is something that is continually on the move, something that is continually evolving, and it is very largely the responsibility of people quite outside Parliament. But there is a very grave responsibility on Governments, and in any discussion of the mess which the Commission found and which is described so vividly, Governments from either party that has been in power since the war must accept a very large share of the blame. In this connection I refer to paragraph 142, which says:
  "Generally speaking, therefore, the Government's considerable powers of intervention in industrial relations are used to support the system of industrial relations as it has developed in private industry."
  It also states:
  "One way or another statutory wage fixation and systems of wage settlement in the public services for the most part yield results not very dissimilar from those achieved by collective bargaining elsewhere."
  There is a very real responsibility on the largest employer in the country to get on and improve its own methods without waiting for an industrial relations committee or any of the rest of the apparatus that is proposed.
  What we on this bench most welcome is the clear and emphatic way in which the Report puts the responsibility where it primarily and mainly lies; namely, at the work-place and, in the first instance, in the hands of the employer who, after all, has the responsibility of taking on and organising the employees. I feel rather strongly that if any message goes out from this very early debate it should be that this House will not provide employers and employees with their answer, that they must not look to Parliament for the main source of results, but that the responsibility rests, first of all, with boards of directors and, secondly, with the various levels of union negotiators.
  What disappoints us in the Report particularly is that the somewhat tepid
  1312
  description of the way in which it is proposed that the industrial relations commission should work and the standards which it should apply. No one can say that Donovan brings its new Commission on the stage in a really dramatic way, and if Donovan has failed to do that the responsibility will be all the more on Government to make sure, if this body is to be brought into being, for which there is very much to be said, that the ordinary chap at the bench can see that it holds out a real hope for him, and is not just one more piece of complicated bureaucracy.
  We appreciate that for a body covering such a vast and highly differentiated field as the C.I.R. will do, if it comes into being, it is impossible for anyone to lay down the precise standards it should adopt, but we should have liked to have seen certain approaches cited in the Report as examples of how the C.I.R. should go about things. In the case of the multi-union workplace, we should have liked to have seen by way of example the Report suggest a compulsory obligation for properly elected works committees which would have the responsibility of work-place bargaining and of seeing that what had been agreed was carried out by the employer. Some hope of participation, some hope that the C.I.R. would bring into being a real means of effective workplace bargaining and participation, would have lit one or two beacons which the present rather dull recitation of platitudinous standards for the Commission will fail to do.
  I repeat that we are not governed in this country, thank goodness, by Royal Commissions. It would be an injustice to the hardworking and penetrating Donovan Commission to expect it to propose semi-automatic machinery to deal with this vast and ramified problem. It is a matter for employers and those with whom they negotiate, but so far as bringing the framework into being that is the job of the Government. We look forward not entirely despondently to the early part of next year for some signs that the Labour Government will at least stake their own place in British politics by showing that they can do it.
  6.31 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: No one who has read the Report of the Royal

  1313
  Commission can fail to agree that Mr. Justice Donovan and his colleagues have produced a painstaking and thorough document of the kind we have needed for a very long time. Not only does the Report reflect very deep thought on a wide range of industrial problems, but for the most part it resists most of the wilder and more reactionary thinking of employer organisations and their spokesmen on the benches opposite. It need hardly be said that this is a critically important area of policy where mistakes resulting from ignorance of the real situation in industry or from prejudice could have the most calamitous effect on industrial relations in this country.
  Despite the attempts which have been made by employers and others to suggest that Britain is a strike-ridden country full of industrial layabouts, judging by the "league tables" of comparison with other industrialised countries, Britain is very near the bottom of the "league" in the number of days lost through strikes. As has often been pointed out, vastly greater loss of production occurs every year through preventable illness than through strikes.
  Although I shall have some serious criticisms to make of the Report, nevertheless I start with one or two bouquets to Mr. Justice Donovan and his colleagues. The first is the importance which the Report attaches to white-collar or non-manual trade unionism. This is growing by leaps and bounds, as the recent growth of the National Union of Bank Employees, to give but one example, testifies. It is important that this fact and the reason for it should be well understood by the House. As an executive member of the A.S.T.M.S.— incidentally, the fastest growing union in the Trades Union Congress and the leading technicians' and supervisors' union in the world—I am very relieved that the Commission has done its homework so thoroughly and got its perspective correct in this regard.
  Too often in the past, official bodies of this sort have been prepared to concede in full the right of manual workers to organise, but have been extremely reluctant to concede the same right to non-manual or white-collar workers. I quote from the relevant section of the Report on this theme, which seems eminently sensible. Paragraph 231 says:
  1314
  "Some employers hold that there is a special relationship between the employer and white-collar staff which is incompatible with their representation by a trade union. This view is becoming increasingly unrealistic and out of date. It fails to recognise the growth of large bodies of white-collar workers in no way involved in management whose hours and conditions of employment cannot be settled by discussion with each individual. Even among managers trade unionism is not necessarily inappropriate, as the experience of the nationalised industries and the civil service show. Though in private industry such persons at present normally prefer to negotiate their own terms and conditions, they nevertheless frequently combine to protect their interests in professional matters."
  Later the Report says:
  "Employment is increasing in areas which have proved difficult to organise, so that the effect of obstacles to the development and recognition of unions in these areas is assuming greater importance for the future of collective bargaining. The evidence is that if these obstacles are to be surmounted more effective means of dealing with problems of trade union recognition are needed."
  That is in paragraph 224.
  The second bouquet which I give to the Donovan Commission is for its recommendation to set up some kind of industrial relations council to cover matters of union recognition and other industrial issues, a matter on which there may be some disagreement with some of my political nearest and dearest. We could have done with this body some weeks ago when questions about my union and the Clerical Workers' Union came before the British Steel Corporation. It took the threat and the actual commencing of industrial action to cause a committee of inquiry to be appointed to look into these matters. The matter is, of course, sub judice at the moment and, therefore, I cannot comment on the merit of our case, but this incident underlines not only the deplorable state of the Steel Corporation's thinking on industrial matters but also the need for some such body as that now proposed by the Donovan Commission.
  The main question here is whether workers are to be allowed to belong to a union of their own choice. In order to make this possible there must be facilities for ascertaining the views of workers concerned and giving effect to that in the shape of recognition. This raises the question whether decisions by the proposed industrial relations commission should have the force of law. My view is that it would be advisable to

  1315
  try voluntary procedure first so that a body of case law could be built up, but I retain an open mind as to whether eventually legal backing might become necessary. The question is whether or not the commission's decisions would have enough weight and effect without legal backing.
  There is, of course, ample justification for giving such a body mandatory power, not least in the I.L.O. Convention No. 87 which in Article 2 says:
  "Workers and employers without distinction whatsoever shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choice without previous authorisation."
  Article 3 says:
  "The Public Authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof."
  These Conventions were ratified by Parliament many years ago. We seem to have a national genius for failing to complete the operation by enacting legislation reflecting Conventions we have ratified.
  Returning to the question of white-collar unionism, although the social or snob reasons for white-collar workers not joining unions have begun to disappear, none the less there are still very substantial difficulties inhibiting the growth of unionism in this sector of industry. This is something which the Donovan Commission quite rightly deplores. Particularly among older non-manual employees there is still widespread fear of dismissal and victimisation. Obviously the difficulty of a 50-year old employee finding work is enough to keep large numbers of such people extremely tame in an industrial sense. For this reason I welcome the Donovan proposal to set up labour tribunals to deal with issues arising out of contracts of employment, excluding, of course, injury claims, and also to safeguard employees against unfair dismissal. This means that any worker who feels aggrieved at being sacked would have the right to seek compensation or, if both parties agree, reinstatement.
  I am rather unhappy about the recommendation on reinstatement. I hope that further consideration will be given to it before the Government translate the rich red wine of Donovan into the Ribena
  1316
  of a Statute. Reinstatement should not be subject to the agreement of both parties, but should always be a possibility. The reason will be obvious to anyone with much experience of industrial relations. There are many employers who, if given the option of reinstating the dismissed worker or paying compensation, would make the calculation that they were better off by paying up and getting rid of the union leadership within the factory. Therefore, it would be highly unwise for the Government to leave this potentially disruptive possibility in any Bill they may prepare based on the Report. Reinstatement should always be possible.
  I turn to another factor which tends to make for industrial trouble, and which has certainly retarded the growth of trade unionism amongst non-manual workers in the past. I refer to the notorious rule of the Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit Society, the F.S.M.B.S., which prohibits membership of a trade union to its members. This body, heavily backed by many big firms, has proved resistant to all blandishments and suggestions about democratising its rules—so much so, that it has become necessary for my own union, which for many years led the fight against this body, to go to the great trouble and expense of promoting a private Bill to make it impossible for this highly reactionary body to continue to exercise discrimination against trade unions. Naturally, we are very delighted that Lord Donovan and his colleagues have much the same point of view as ours on the matter. No doubt, careful note will be taken of their views when the private legislation comes before the House.
  Perhaps I should, in passing, pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretatry to the Treasury, as members of the A.S.S.E.T. Parliamentary Committee for many years, led the Parliamentary fight against the F.S.M.B.S., and for whose continued help by way of assisting the necessary legislation we should be most grateful if it were forthcoming.
  The extent of the Royal Commission's support for my union's position on this pernicious F.S.M.B.S. rule can be gauged from the reference to it in paragraph 252, which says:
  "In our view it is quite foreign to the purposes of Friendly Society that it should

  1317
  prescribe its rules that no one can be a member and drew benefits if he is a trade unionist. If the State's policy is to encourage collective bargaining through the medium of representative trade unions, since this is in the public interest, then such a rule as rule 7 is contrary to the public interest."
  The Report later adds:
  "The Commission further considers it contrary to the public interest that an employer should stipulate in a contract of employment that an employee should not belong to a trade union, and recommends that any such stipulation should in law be void and of no effect."
  Another constructive and useful suggestion in the Report is the selective revival of the right to go to arbitration unilaterally, as happened during the Second World War and the years immediately after. That would bring to heel the humbug employer who is playing for time by confusing the issue and using similar tactics. It would also help to deal with the employer who provides himself with a running defence against effective unionisation by recognising other unions with little or no strength inside the organisation rather than unions genuinely representative of the various grades. A recent example, I suspect, is the decision of the Personnel Director of the British Steel Corporation, a former member of the T.U.C. General Council, to recognise unions that have little or no membership in the clerical and technical grades at the expense of those that have. It is a mistake which has produced a vast amount of industrial trouble that could have been avoided. I hope that this is the last we shall see of this kind of industrial three card trick.
  I should like to turn briefly to several other aspects of the Report which I find a little less pleasing, and possibly also ill-considered and impracticable.
  Mr. James Tinn: My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties with the British Steel Corporation. His references were rather one-sided. Does he accept the principles of the Bridlington Agreement, which for many years has prevented the kind of industrial union trouble which the activities of his organisation and the other concerned seem likely to bring into steel for the first time?
  Mr. Kerr: My union is well known as a faithful upholder of the Bridlington Agreement. We have a very impressive
  1318
  list of victories when the matter has come before the T.U.C. Disputes Council.
  The first item in the Report that I find a little less pleasing is the recommendation that the protection of Section 3 of the Trades Disputes Act, 1906 be withdrawn from unofficial strikers, those whose industrial action is taken without the formal blessing of their union executive. The effect of the recommendation would be to deprive unofficial strikers of immunity from action for inducing breaches of contract, and expose them to actions for civil conspiracy if they made, and acted on, an agreement to induce or procure a breach of contract. It is noteworthy that a substantial minority of members of the Royal Commission dissented from the recommendation, and several of the dissenters had a very deep knowledge of industrial relations.
  Were the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) present I should tell him—here he is. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. If the Government were so foolish as to carry that recommendation into law—surely a possibility that one can dismiss—such a change would return industrial relations in this country to the dark ages, or at any rate to the 19th century. It would mean not only massive industrial unrest following actions in the courts against unofficial strike leaders, but also, as a trade union colleague recently put it to me, the shifting of the final bargaining to settle issues from St. James's Square to the governor's office of our debtors' prisons.
  The recent industrial dispute in the Irish electrical supply industry is a reminder of what could happen here, and a warning against complacency. In any case, this idea is a nonsense. For the benefit of the right hon. Member for Mitcham, the fact is that some 42 per cent. of so-called official strikes start life as unofficial, so the Government would be wise to stick to the present law, which wisely makes no distinction between official and unofficial strikes. If, despite what I say, the Government go ahead, I make the safe prediction that union after union will rightly change its rules so as to make all strikes official, unless the union decides otherwise.
  Mr. R. Carr Mr. R. Carr rose—
  Mr. Kerr: I am well overdue.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches. Many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Kerr: I am trying to come to my conclusion quickly.
  I appeal to the Government not to worsen still further relations with the trade union movement by accepting the recommendation. They have enough on their hands repairing the catastrophic damage done by the Prices and Incomes Act without flying into more trouble.
  The other recommendation that is unacceptable to me and is wildly impracticable is the proposal that industrial agreements should be registered. Even though a tiny meatless bone is thrown to the critics by the rider that if employers have no deals to report this may be investigated, on the ground that the firms concerned might not have conceded adequate union recognition, the suggestion is ill-considered and betrays a frightening bias that is happily not evident elsewhere, in that it submits only one section of our economic life to an intolerable degree of bureaucratic surveillance unmatched elsewhere. Before the Government land themselves in this bureaucratic morass, I suggest that they do a little homework.
  For example, do the Government have any idea of how many firm and company agreements there are, or how many changes in these agreements are bargained annually? Remembering that this is a Labour Government operating in the shark-infested waters of a so-called free economy, do the Government think it right to vet and investigate all collective agreements, with the inevitable consequence of interfering with agreements to the detriment of the workers? I beg the Government to think and think again before they take such a long step towards the corporate State as would be involved in this proposal.
  This brings me—no doubt, much to your relief, Mr. Speaker—to my last point, which I can put very briefly. In all these matters of industrial relations, it is a great mistake to imagine that over any length of time it can benefit the nation or its industry for the Government to attempt to coerce workers into doing things which are utterly distasteful to them. By and large, the mass of workers will reject and render counter-
  1320
  productive any such attempt, as the present unrest and political bloody minded-ness of the workers over the prices and incomes legislation shows quite clearly. I appeal to the Government, therefore, to seek the path of co-operation and agreement with the trade unions and, in so doing, who knows but that they might in time persuade some millions of trade unionists that the Labour Government is their friend and not their enemy, which would be a happy end to the unhappy story which began on 20th July, 1966?
  Mr. Speaker: Again I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak and that brief speeches will help.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Fortescue: Intervening for the first time in an industrial relations debate in the House, I cannot presume to bring to the subject the breath of knowledge or the deeply informed comment which have been brought to it by so many other speakers. I suggest, however, that, although we have been gently chided by hon. Members opposite for not being members of trade unions, experience in the management side of industrial relations is just as valuable a contribution to the subject as experience on the trade union side. I must tell the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford), who mentioned this matter, that the last thing I did before leaving my previous management job was to institute arrangements whereby young girls of 16 on the staff did not have better conditions of service than had their fathers who had been on the shop floor for 40 years.
  My purpose tonight is briefly to examine rather more closely than has been done so far one of the sections of the Donovan Report. We have had many broad and perhaps vague words of praise and censure for the Report, but as yet nobody has gone very deeply into any of its various subjects. The subject with which I should like to deal is that of the definition of a trade dispute which appears in paragraphs 816 to 822 of the Report.
  The definition of a trade dispute in the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, which is quoted by the Report is set out as though it were Holy Writ, or something from one of Shakespeare's plays. It is set out in italics and in short lines which look

  1321
  as though they should rhyme, but which, as far as I can see do not—the metre is not entirely apparent to me—but it is set out as though it was something carved in stone many centuries ago and not in any case or in any way to be altered.
  The first sentence of the Report after the definition is in fact:
  "We do not think that this definition needs any substantial alteration."
  The first appendix to the Report shows that none of the 320 questions which the Donovan Commission asked had any connection with the definition of a trade dispute. It did not even ask whether the definition should be changed.
  I was intrigued by this and I thought that the arguments in the House in 1906, when this definition of a trade dispute must have been so painfully hammered out, would be instructive and informative for me. In my ignorance, I was sure that hon. Members opposite would know the arguments by heart, but I thought that for my education I should revert to them. As you are very busy, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you have not had time recently to read that debate and it may have slipped your memory exactly what then happened.
  In those days there were debates on First Readings but when the Trade Disputes Bill, 1906, was introduced, there was no definition of a trade dispute in the Bill either on First or Second Reading. One or two hon. Members rather desultorily and casually suggested in the course of the debates that to have a definition of a trade dispute might be a good idea. However, the Bill went through its entire Committee stage and still there was no definition of a trade dispute.
  But on Report the Attorney-General— this is at col. 232 of the Commons Debates of 5th November—a very suitable date—1906, introduced a definition of a trade dispute into the Bill. That definition was, by and large, the same as that which finally became part of the law and which is quoted with such approbation and respect by the Donovan Report. It was not debated at all. The Attorney-General introduced it and Lord Robert Cecil promptly said that he entirely agreed with it, provided always that the expression should not include any agrarian dispute, or a dispute of a
  1322
  political character, and, with that assurance from the Attorney-General, the debate passed to the next Question.
  The Third Reading of the Bill was on 9th November and again this definition went entirely unchallenged, except that it was provided that it should not apply to agrarian disputes in Ireland. Apart from that, there was no comment. I could go on about this for some time but I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are already getting impatient. In the House of Lords the definition was never challenged and it was finally written into the Act as the law of the land.
  My point is that this definition, written somewhere in the Attorney-General's office 62 years ago and never challenged in either House of Parliament, has now been said by the Donovan Commission to be unchangeable and unnecessary to be changed. The Commission says that it stands as it did then, that it is wholly perfect and that nothing should be done about it.
  It is extremely difficult for me, and I would have thought for the House, after all that lapse of time, with such extraordinarily changed circumstances and such an extraordinary change in the status of our trade unions, to say that the definition of a trade dispute should not at least be looked at, and I recommend the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friend when considering the Report of the Donovan Commission not to take that recommendation without some qualification, perhaps considering whether there might be any chance of changing it for the better in the light of today's circumstances.
  For myself, I have one or two suggestions. I would have thought that in today's circumstances the following trade disputes should no longer enjoy the immunity from civil actions for damages which they have enjoyed for 62 years. Sympathetic strikes should no longer enjoy that immunity. Nor should action when the goods of employers other than one's own employer are "blacked" in sympathy with another union which is on strike, or when one's own union at another place is on strike. I suggest that inter-union disputes themselves should not be subject to immunity from damages in civil courts. Finally, I suggest that strikes to enforce a closed or union shop should not enjoy this immunity.

  1323
  All these industrial actions are taken when the employer is in no way doing anything to damage the interests of the trade union concerned.
  Mr. Orme: He is.
  Mr. Fortescue: The employer is innocent in this matter, and in those circumstances why should the union which is taking industrial action, which inevitably is again the employer who is innocent in the matter—
  Mr. Orme: No.
  Mr. Fortescue: If the hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt, I am willing to allow him to do so.
  Mr. Orme: I am sorry to have intervened while sitting down. If it is a dispute for trade union recognition within a factory, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, for a closed shop or for the establishment of full trade union recognition, the employer is involved and is responsible.
  Mr. Fortescue: A study of the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow will convince the hon. Gentleman, no doubt, that I said nothing about trade union recognition. I am talking about cases where an employer, who has done nothing which could be said to be objectionable to the union, suffers from the coercive action of the union. I suggest that, when the Government are considering the recommendations contained in the Report, they should not automatically accept that no change is necessary in the definition of a trade dispute.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. James Hamilton: I am glad that I have been called to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), because he referred to unofficial stoppages in pursuit of the right of a trade union to establish a closed shop in a factory. At present, all negotiations in industry are conducted by trade unions. If the majority of employees in a factory are members of a trade union, an unscrupulous employer can use non-trade union members against the interest of organised trade unionists. I speak now with some experience, because this happens in many cases.
  I want to be objective, sincere and honest about the question of unofficial
  1324
  stoppages. It has been said—and this is correct—that 52 per cent. of unofficial stoppages are later recognised by the executive councils of the trade unions concerned. The lines of communication between management and workers must be closely examined. It has been my experience and that of my trade union that a walk-out results if employers attempt to foist something on to the workers without giving them the right to discuss it, because this gets the backs of workers up.
  Nothing has been said so far about what are often called recalcitrant American employers. I have four of them in my constituency. These four employers have shown leadership of the highest order in the matter of recognising trade unions. Honeywell Controls, with 4,600 workers, holds top-level meetings every week with trade unions. There are discussions with shop stewards, who are told the programme which will be put before the workers for the ensuing month. Every employee is allowed to join a trade union. Some hon. Members opposite have visited the factory. They will know that on a notice board there is a document giving all the necessary information about the trade union movement.
  The same applies with the American firms of Euclid, Caterpillar, and Ramco which has a resident convenor in the factory who does nothing but trade union work. He is always there when he is required. This goes a long way towards solving the scourge of unofficial stoppages, which are not in the best interests of the company, are not in the best interests of management and, most important of all, are not in the country's best interests.
  I believe that employers are greatly to blame for the prevailing industrial unrest. A few weeks ago I received a letter from a branch secretary in my union telling me that the workers at a factory for which he was responsible wanted to discuss with the management the right to bring in an agreement based on productivity. The management said that it was not prepared to meet the shop stewards to discuss a productivity agreement. The only way in which the union could get the management to meet the shop stewards was by having an unofficial stoppage. This is the sort of situation which prevails. Unless management is prepared to do

  1325
  something about it, we shall always be in this difficult situation.
  On the other hand, I condemn trade unions. In the construction industry, one of the trade unions with members working on a particular site will put in an application for increased wages. Once the application has been granted, it permeates throughout the whole site. An employer who is not prepared to recognise that the application is justified—in some instances I would agree with the employer—is faced with an unofficial stoppage.
  How is this to be dealt with? Employers on construction sites should recognise the right of trade unions to have a site committee and a site convenor to carry out the negotiations with the acquiescence of all the trade unions involved. This has happened on contracts throughout the country. Once this is recognised, peace prevails and the contract moves to a satisfactory conclusion.
  Some employers do not inform trade union members of what their intentions are before entering into negotiations. Once the negotiations reach deadlock, based on the procedural agreement prevailing in the industry concerned, the full-time official is brought in. Often he can make no progress. In some cases, however, he has been away from the site for only a few hours before the employer succumbs to the wishes of the shop stewards. This places the national official in an impossible position. Employers must be prepared to recognise that national officials are the recognised leaders of the union. In most cases, they are elected on a national basis. They are the appropriate persons to conduct negotiations concerning national agreements.
  There has been talk ad nauseam in recent months about productivity agreements. Anyone who says that a productivity agreement can be signed and sealed at rational level does not know what he is talking about. All productivity agreements are made at plant or site level. These are the only places where a proper agreement can be arrived at. Once such an agreement has been reached between unions and management at plant level, for the agreement to be signed, sealed and endorsed, it is of paramount importance that it be sent to the union's national executive so that it is fully aware of the agreement that has been entered
  1326
  into at plant level between shop stewards and management. To talk about national agreements in the same way that we talk about local agreements is a complete fallacy.
  This is the centenary year of the trade union movement. Unfortunately, the Trades Union Congress at national level is devoid of teeth. In September, it has a Congress when a resolution will come before it from a certain union. Once it has been carried, the unions which do not agree with it can walk out of the conference hall and do as they like about it. The trade union movement must have a reappraisal of the situation. This is one of the big weaknesses of trade union structure. Until such time as we do something about it, we shall not make the desired progress.
  The Confederation of Engineering Unions is the most powerful negotiator in the country. It negotiates on behalf of 3¼ million workers. Consequently, it is an organisation which the employers, in the interests of the country, must recognise and pay attention to. We talk about a prices and incomes policy. The Confederation has been negotiating with the employers for exactly 10 months and has not yet reached agreement on the wage application. We had a national stoppage throughout the country to get the employers to take it back for further recognition. Now the employers are prepared to discuss the matter with the unions and I hazard a guess that 14 months will elapse before agreement is reached.
  The moral of that story is that there must be a reorganisation of procedural agreements. We must have another look at procedural agreements and give unions and managements the right to settle their problems more speedily. Until we do that, this Report, and any other reports which emanate from whatever source we may mention, will be of no avail.
  I congratulate the Opposition on giving us the opportunity of having a preliminary discussion on this very important Report. The branches and national executives of the unions have not had the opportunity of discussing it. I hope that at the end of the day we are all attempting to achieve something which will give us peace in industry, which will give industry the necessary impetus to move forward, which will enable us to increase valuable exports and cut imports—indeed,

  1327
  which will give us the economic stability which is vitally necessary to this country. If that is achieved as a result of this debate, it will have served a very useful purpose.
  7.15 p.m
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: It is always a very great pleasure to follow in debate the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton). He always deals with the subject in hand in an objective and sincere way. He speaks with the special knowledge of being a senior trade union official. The only small contribution which I can make stems from the fact that in the five years before I became a Member I worked for an employers' organisation. The Donovan Report deals with employers' organisations and trade unions, and not a great deal has been said about the employers' organisations. I was not by any means a senior official in the shipyards of the Clyde, but I had a great deal to do with negotiations at yard and local level.
  In spite of what is good and favourable in the Report the references to employers' associations, which are dealt with at some length in Chapter 13, are rather unfair, and the references on pages 41 and 43 to the functions which the Royal Commission sees employers' organisations having are, to my mind, unbelievable. The Royal Commission says that we should move to a system of bargaining. It asks who is in a position to make factory agreements the basis of industrial relations in Britain. It says that the employers' associations cannot do so.
  In paragraph 175, the Royal Commission refers to the situation after bargaining comes into existence and says that employers' organisations could have a very useful function to fulfil in represening
  "their members to the Government and Government departments, and provide work study and trained services and circulate information."
  The concept of industrial relations on this basis is totally out of touch with reality. I fear that the Royal Commission has made the serious mistake of thinking that employers consist of people working in little factories which are apart from the industrial complex of an area.
  In the job which I had for an employers' organisation most of my tasks
  1328
  were concerned, not with protecting employers against trade unions, but often with protecting employers against themselves. The easiest thing in the world for any employer to do is to cave in to a situation in which he is under threat and thereby put all his fellow employers in a very difficult position, to filch labour by increasing wages, and so on. To suggest that the trade unions should carry on collectively working for all their members together and using the full might of their unions, whereas in negotiations employers should be concerned only with working on a fair basis, is out of touch with reality.
  While plant bargaining may grow— and our experience in recent years has been for national wage agreements to be of a smaller amount in relation to the total wage movement of a year and for bargaining at plant level to be of more significance in general wage movements —it is clear that movements within one firm or factory or shipyard concern all the employers of the district and not just one. Therefore, the employers' associations have a real rôle to perform, and I think that the Royal Commission was wrong in this regard.
  If we have any doubt about the need for employers effectively to work together in the same way as unionists have had to band together in their common interest, we need only look at some very recent industrial disputes. There was the famous instance of D.A.T.A. trying to impose its own wages scale by picking on particular employers at the most difficult time for them and thereby trying to get recognition of its own scale of rates. It is wrong to blame it for doing this in a system which is geared to a constant battle which is essential in any semi-capitalist community. On the other hand, it is entirely wrong to suggest that employers should think only of themselves and not appreciate that they have an obligation to industry as well as themselves to work together.
  Having seen the effect of a concession of 2d. or 3d. an hour to joiners, electricians or plumbers in one establishment and how it can affect the situation, I think that we are living in cloud-cuckoo-land if we think in terms of plant bargaining without the full authority and direction of an employers' association to fight for industry and not just for an

  1329
  individual firm. However, I agree 100 per cent. with what the hon. Member for Bothwell said about strikes. As was suggested tentatively by the Royal Com-mission, far too often strikes take place simply because strikes pay. How often have I seen a bona fide elected trade union official reasonably push forward his claim under a procedure agreement with all the logical backing in the world, which is turned down, and about two weeks later one or two shop stewards organise an unofficial strike at an important and embarrassing time for the firm and within days the claim is conceded in full.
  Trade union recognition does not involve just sitting round a table and having cups of tea with trade union officials. What is more important is that full recognition should be given and any concessions which are to be made should be given to the elected and bona fide trade union officials. We cannot have any grounds for objecting to the irresponsibility of shop stewards and unofficial strikers if we are not prepared to give full backing to trade union officials in their work. Many of the strikes in industry stem simply from weak employers who are irresponsible in themselves and are not prepared to give the proper backing to a trade union official.
  A point with which the hon. Member for Bothwell would also agree is that it seems to me from my small experience in industry that the one union which does not exist is a union for trade union officials. It is appalling to discover the wages that are paid to certain trade union officials, the conditions in which they work and the fact that men holding key and responsible jobs in the community often receive less money than the people they represent. Their hours of work are extremely long, bearing in mind that many pressure meetings take place outside normal working hours. There is a case for considering whether the trade union movement, instead of simply fighting for the people whom it is meant to represent, could fight for some of its own full-time officials.
  The Report of the Commission mentions in detail the question of the right to trade union recognition and union membership. While I have enjoyed almost all the speeches in the debate, the speech by the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) made me boil a little.
  1330
  He talked about the need for trade union recognition and of everyone to join a union. I asked him to remember that while there is certainly a right to join a union, there is surely also a right not to join a union. The specific instance mentioned by the hon. Member of the Foremen and Staffs Mutual Benefit Society has relevance to this.
  Many people in industry consider that one of the great problems of industry has been the growth of what might be called a white-collar bureaucracy in management. Instead of the old system of people working their way through industry and getting to the top, we now find—for, I am sure, logical, sensible reasons—that most top management these days, particularly in the newer, more modern industries, seem to be chartered accountants and university graduates, splendid people who work extremely hard, but many of them are a little out of touch with shop-floor attitudes and problems. In these circumstances, the position of the foreman is even more important than ever before.
  One of the biggest problems in industry is the change in attitudes when people leave work on the shop floor to become foremen. Overnight, a foreman might become a member of the management team. He has to have new concepts and ideas. It is difficult for anyone to do this who gains promotion in his own establishment. It is all the more difficult if he retains membership of a union, and of the union of which he was a member.
  When pressure was brought to bear by the Boilermakers' Society in the shipyards, people were told on gaining promotion that if on becoming foremen they did not retain membership of the society and join the society's foremen's register, if ever they had to return to their tools things would be difficult for them. I hope that regard will be paid to the pressure which is put on by certain unions.
  No one is under any obligation to join the Foremen and Staffs Mutual Benefit Society. Allegations in general have been made in the past, but any specific cases have been shot down in flames whenever they have been brought forward. Many people in industry feel that there is a right for people to join together who do not want to join a trade union. Certainly, for the sake of the management

  1331
  structure in industry, that is a viewpoint which can be supported with reasonableness.
  The interesting thing concerning the Foremen and Staffs Mutual Benefit Society is that when the recent decision was taken on the continuation of their rule which causes so much offence to the hon. Member for Feltham, the employees' representatives who voted did so by a very substantial margin for the continuation of this rule. We certainly want the right to trade union recognition, but if we have this the unions must accept responsibility for the conduct of their members on the lines suggested in the interesting document "Fair Deal at Work" put forward by my party.
  It is rather a tragedy that although the unions have quite frightening powers of discipline over their members—for example, the power to deprive them of employment or to have them removed from an industry—these powers are not used. Certainly, if the unions demand more and more recognition and the right to negotiate at all levels, they must accept responsibility for at least the industrial conduct of those whom they represent and whose attitudes they support.
  I have much to say but must cut short my speech. I have one final point about the giving of legal backing to agreements. It was interesting to hear the Minister say that there was no great pressure from those who have the power to give legal backing to agreements. There is a major difference between contracting out and contracting in. That was the whole point of the change in Clause 4 of the old Bill.
  On the other hand, we have seen almost an incentive to go legal in many of the recent agreements. We have seen an increase of 6d. an hour at six-month intervals consequent upon, and subject to, changes in working practice. This is simply another way of giving an agreement legal backing by saying that an increase will be applied only if certain things are done. It is like the practice of establishing an internal legal system to tell workers that they can have 11s. more a week if they turn up for work every day on time. This is another form of giving legal backing to an agreement, because the money is not paid if the obligation is not carried out. In these circumstances, there is a great desire to have legal back-
  1332
  ing for such agreements. I am convinced that if we move to a contracting-out system, we shall find that there are very few industries which do not wish to support this.
  All this, however, is subject to a change of attitude in industrial relations. The example which I have mentioned was seen recently in the rail dispute. Men asked for something and were told that as a matter of principle it could not be conceded. Two weeks of industrial unrest followed and then the concession was made. The nationalised industries are not worse than private industry in this regard. That is simply a topical example.
  The best way to avoid and stop strikes and to carry out what we want in the Commission is to create the circumstances in which strikes do not pay and concessions are made in every case through the normal procedure of the industry, giving the maximum good will to the authorised trade union officials.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. John Horner: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) is not present, because I wanted to say to him how disappointed I was at the burden of his speech. His party have chosen this Supply day to debate the Royal Commission Report. It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was singularly lacking in constructive comment or serious criticism of the Report. It is to the Report that I wish to direct the attention of the House.
  I am not very disappointed in the Report, because I did not expect very much from a Royal Commission which had the terms of reference that this Commission had. It was asked to
  "consider relations between managements and employees and the role of trade unions and employers' associations in promoting the interests of their members and in accelerating the social and economic advance of the nation, with particular reference to the law affecting the activities of these bodies; and to report".
  The Report is a monumental tome and a mine of fact and information that will stand examination for many years. All of us who are concerned with industrial relations are grateful to Lord Donovan and his Commission. What we have from them, however, is not a Report dealing with such matters as
  "accelerating the social and economic advance of the nation "

  1333
  or
  "the role of trade unions".
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) spoke of the rather negative way in which the Report deals with the rôle of employers' associations. Nevertheless, we have an invaluable document which describes the way in which industrial relations are conducted and which makes some suggestions about how they might be improved.
  I imagine that others were disappointed at the Report for other reasons. The blood and thunder critics of trade unions have been disappointed. In the three years in which the Commission was sitting we witnessed a spate of critical articles, analyses and speeches about the iniquities of trade unions. Many people no doubt anticipated that the Report would produce recommendations carrying penalties for official strikers, let alone unofficial ones. They no doubt expected that shop stewards would be portrayed as mischievous wreckers instead of hard working, co-operative people who, as the Report points out, often have troubles thrust on them rather than looking for them. The Report makes it clear that the economic ills of the nation do not stem from the malpractices of trade unionists. It emphasises that industrial conflict does not stem from the mischievous activities of bloody-minded shop stewards.
  One sees from the general perspective of the Report that management is castigated for failing to adapt its procedures and institutions to the changing industrial and technological demands of the second half of this century. Management is condemned for having wholly failed in the past 50 years to initiate progressive change in industrial relations and for leaving the matter entirely to the trade unions and Government to explore. The Report makes it clear that management must shoulder the main burden of leadership and initiative for the necessary reconstruction of industrial relations which, it states, is fundamental to meet the needs of our society in the remaining years of this century.
  I have not been persuaded so far in this debate to support those who argue that the Commission is wrong in saying that our present ills and shortcomings do not stem from the voluntary character of
  1334
  British collective bargaining. The right hon. Member for Mitcham said that we should not pride ourselves on the uniquely voluntary character of our collective bargaining system. The Report says that the ills and shortcomings have other causes. It argues, it seems, that to weaken or reject this unique collective bargaining system, with its voluntary character, or to restrict or confine it would be pointless and, I fear, would be most harmful.
  The major aspect of the Report, which will be most intensively discussed, is that part which argues against the case made by what I would call the "legalists". The Report sets out brilliantly and with powerful documentation the argument against those who would seek to restrict the voluntary character of the British industrial relations system. I am waiting to hear arguments against that part of the Report which makes it clear that, desirable or not, the legal enforcement of agreements—sanctions against trade unions and trade unionists—simply will not work.
  Those who have read Appendix 6 to the Report, presented by Sir Harold Emmerson, Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Labour during the war, will have been struck by the cogent way in which, without drawing conclusions, he clearly sets out what would happen if one tried to apply legal sanctions against workpeople who were striking officially or unofficially.
  I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) in warning the Government against accepting too lightly the idea that one can distinguish between official and unofficial strikes by some simple means. Recently in my constituency we had a major strike. It was wholly unofficial because it was conducted, led and participated in by strikers who were not members of any trade union. The history of the trade union movement is littered with examples of strikes undertaken by non-unionists.
  I recall the famous strike of girls at the A.A. Headquarters in Birmingham. It was unofficial and it was not organised. I also remember the strike that took place at Foyles. That made the headlines for some days, but the strikers were not union members. The right to strike is indivisible. It does not require

  1335
  trade union authority. It therefore cannot be legalised out of existence. That is why I join my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham in warning the Government to be extremely careful in examining this aspect of the Commission's Report.
  I readily acknowledge many of the deficiencies, shortcomings and weaknesses in the organisation and administration of trade unions, and particularly those aspects mentioned in the Report as a result of the Commission's investigation. I acknowledge that these matters must be given serious attention by trade unionists. Indeed, it would be cowardly to run away from many of the conclusions, as a result of these trade union weaknesses, which the Commission draws.
  When one considers the whole sphere of industrial relations, one must accept that the Commission deals with the realities of the situation and presents the facts, even if they are the facts that one does not necessarily wish to hear. These facts disappoint those who would like to pretend that things are not what they are. On the basis of these facts the Commission reaches conclusions which, in broad outline, I am prepared to accept in this, the first examination of the Report in the House. This is, after all, our first examination of this monumental tome. Generally speaking, if one does not like the facts, one will not like the conclusions. I do not like many of the facts, but I am prepared to accept them, and the conclusions.
  There is a brilliant exposition in the Report of what Donovan calls the "two systems". One is the growth, whether or not we like it, of plant bargaining. This is bound to extend ever wider in the ensuing years. I was a member of a trade union which had no plant bargaining facilities. It had a national system of wages, nationally laid down and strictly adhered to. I recognise the changes that have taken place in industry, and Donovan, also recognising them, clearly exposes the weaknesses in trade union negotiations and in the structure of industrial wage agreements which flow from too heavy a reliance on national agreements. These are facts,
  "But facts are chiels that winna ding",
  if I quote correctly. These are the facts which Lord Donovan and the Commis-
  1336
  sion are asking the trade unions and employers to face.
  To conclude, I will refer to the I.R.C., the Industrial Relations Commission. The I.R.C. has a set of obligations. Its duties are hazily sketched in by the Report. The idea of the I.R.C. needs a great deal more study before I would subscribe to it without qualification. The Royal Commission is right to say that, however necessary it is to look to the legal framework within which industrial relations are conducted, it would be a gross mistake to modify that framework by imposing upon trade unions the legal strictures, the inhibitions, which we have heard from the hon. Gentleman opposite. There is a vast gulf between the arguments and philosophy of hon. Gentlemen opposite and the arguments so well presented by the Royal Commission. I stand with the Royal Commission. The "legalists" will have a hard job to argue against the closely documented and brilliantly worded paragraphs of the Royal Commission's Report. Lord Donovan and his colleagues say that it is not possible to impose by law a code of behaviour. If it is sought to make people subscribe to a legal framework which is a pretence and not a reality a great deal of harm will be done to the fabric which has been established and built up over the years and, far from developing a harmonious and more co-operative basis of industrial relations, there will be a danger of importing an element of disharmony.
  The trade unions are the greatest voluntary organisations which this country has ever established. They are a great contribution to civilisation. My right hon. Friend the erstwhile Minister of Labour of blessed memory has spoken of the golden age of Ernie Bevin. The golden age of trade unions has never existed. There has never been a time when the trade unions have not been under attack. They have been under attack during the last three years pending the publication of the Donovan Report. The Donovan Report has disappointed many people who thought that a caricature of the trade union movement would be produced. The Royal Commission has done yeomen service to the country by the way in which it has produced a picture of industrial relations, and I hope, in spite of the qualifications

  1337
  which I have mentioned, the Government will pay serious attention to the Report and will act upon it in the not too distant future.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The hon. Member for Old-bury and Halesowen (Mr. Homer) has made a speech with which I find myself largely in agreement. I would ask him not to try to widen the gulf on the two sides of the House between the Donovan Report and the Conservative proposals. I do not believe that the gulf is as wide as he is trying to make out. The encouraging thing about the present times is that industrial relations are becoming less and less bedevilled by politics. The recent example of the prices and incomes legislation, when the Tories and the trade unions voted solidly against the Government and the C.B.I., suggests that there is hope that the hitherto partisan and party attitude to industrial relations may be tending at least to become confused.
  A touch of this was apparent in the otherwise excellent and interesting article of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), to whom tribute should be paid for having set up the Donovan Commission. He said very wise things upon the subject. He said that during his stewardship of the Ministry of Labour he had to a large extent relied upon knowing all the chaps and letting them talk and that this had eased tempers and feelings. He also said that the Tories knew nothing about it, and that, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) had great diligence and had done a great deal of work, he was somehow unsuited to deal with industrial relations because he is a Tory. The idea that Socialists can deal with trade unions and industrial relations and that Tories by definition never can is an idea which would be better dropped. I do not think it is true, and it also makes it very much more difficult to find the right solution.
  I start with the origins and the purposes of trade unions which, in a single sentence, were to get a better bargain for their members. The operation of pressure by groups of workpeople led to the maximisation of the return which labour could achieve in a plant, factory or industry. It was an expression of the
  1338
  market value of labour. Just as in some markets value is more easily determined, so in the labour market pressure has to be exerted, and this was especially so in days long ago. It was an essential element in our capitalist system, but times change, and these pressures were overwhelmed by the strength of the combination of employers, and the unions had to match this with combinations of unions. The unfortunate result is that the large national union has made itself liable to takeover by the State or by other organisations in order that it can be used against the interests of its own members. For instance, the Government now put endless pressure on the T.U.C. and on our national unions to exert pressure on their own members to accept prices and incomes disciplines.
  The concept of trying to make trade unions put pressure on their own members to accept industrial discipline, to accept agreements which have been negotiated on their behalf or to accept discipline over strikes is totally misplaced. It can lead only to a situation where the ordinary members of a union have to repudiate the leadership of that union, and it puts trade unions in an impossible place if they are to be subject to pressure from above to control a situation when such control is not in the interests of their own members.
  This explains the powers of the shop stewards and the weakening of the power of the union at the centre. It explains the preoccupation of many of my hon. Friends with unofficial strikes. The strikes are unofficial only because the union has been to some extent suborned and used against the workers by the forces which are active. What we must do, as almost all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have said, is to go back to bargaining. We must go back to the bargain being negotiated and executed between the employer and his men. That is what the whole process is about, what the function of the unions originally was and what it should be again.
  There is no disagreement about this, but what is wrong in both the Donovan proposals and in the proposals of my own Front Bench is that there is nothing like enough stress on the need to establish a system whereby plant bargaining and the enforcement of such bargains can take place much more readily and easily. Why

  1339
  only 5,000 men plus establishments should be included in the Donovan Report, I fail to understand. Nor do I understand why we should not have much more developed thought and recommendations on how we are to break the power of the central bargain in order to get the local bargain into a much more prominent place.
  When I remember what was said in our debates on the Prices and Incomes Bill, I am extremely depressed by the extent to which the Government still seem to think that productivity is something planned for with a team of experts in London. They have not developed their thinking enough of how to coerce people to make more local bargains and to rely more upon them.
  The question of enforceability must be tackled, and, at the very beginning of my remarks on enforceability, I want to make one distinction. One can enforce a procedure much more easily than one can enforce something against people's interests. It might be reasonable to enforce ways of doing things and to put people into a straightjacket about the way they proceed to negotiate, but to try in any way to enforce bargains which concern people's interests and their rights and strengths as bargaining agents is something with which I would not agree.
  The mistake that we have made in the Prices and Incomes legislation is not by tackling the processes of bargaining in legislation to make a clearly defined legal means by which a determination can be arrived at, but by trying to make unlawful the agreements at the end. I would repudiate any proposals which had the effect of trying to enforce some agreement or some unwanted position on the two parties to an industrial negotiation. The same is true of the Race Relations Bill, and that is why I voted against it. It tried to legislate the ends and not the means. It tried to legislate on what people should do instead of on how they should do it.
  We have to think of machinery for achieving plant bargains. It seems extraordinary that no one has yet said that it should be a legal requirement that there is a bargain and a bargaining unit. In the determination of the bargain, we can solve all the problems of non-unionism,
  1340
  which one hon. Member has talked about, and the problems of multi-unionism, where there may be six or as many as 16 unions taking part in the negotiations. The way to do it is to make them elect a team to negotiate. If that becomes a legal requirement, I do not think that anyone can object. It is not the sort of regulation about which anyone can get up any steam because it is clearly not designed to affect the outcome in any way but is solely the means by which things are done.
  Then we come to the problem of enforceability. I believe that people can be made to register a bargaining unit. People can be made to come to a bargain, or at least it can be made in their interests that there should be a bargain. Then the huge question which has dominated the debate comes up, which is how the bargain should be enforced.
  If I may quote briefly from the Report, in paragraph 1054 on page 268 it gives the reasons why bargains cannot be made enforceable. It is a very concise and clear summary of what I believe to be true. It says:
  "A measure which had the effect of putting on unions a legal obligation to use their best endeavours to secure the observance of procedure agreements would be more likely to lead to internal union disruption than to fewer unofficial strikes. In present circumstances, no proposal to impose legal sanctions on individuals who strike in breach of procedure agreements is practicable if it relies on enforcement by the employer. Experience shows that criminal proceedings would not be successful. An 'automatic' sanction such as loss of statutory rights to notice and to redundancy pay would also not succeed: it would not in fact be automatic but would depend on employer enforcement, and would be ineffective for other reasons as well as being unfair."
  All types of enforcement are rejected by the Commission. I believe that it is right, because the age-old problem will come up which we have debated over and over again. Hundreds of thousands of men cannot be coerced with the law. Whether it is the employer, the union, the State or some commission who is trying to do it, we know that it is virtually impossible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) mentioned one thing which can be done, and that is to require, invite or encourage people to write into their bargain the same rules about what they will do if it is broken. The great advantage

  1341
  of the local productivity bargain is that there is a price which the unions will give for accepting some sort of discipline by agreement in the terms of the plant bargain that they make.
  To quote an over-simplified example, it would be possible for employers to say that certain privileges or rates of pay will be reduced if parts of the bargain which the unions have signed are not kept. That is an agreement which has no legal force and which in any case is unenforceable but which, through the growth of responsibility and the need to bargain fairly, both sides might well accept.
  I believe that we need to add to the proposals before us. I do not think that the legal framework is anything about which hon. Gentlemen opposite can quibble. I do not think that the legal framework in the Donovan Report or that in "Fair Deal at Work" are all that much at variance. The basic ground rules in conducting the affairs of men should be acceptable in all walks of life, but I believe that we should move on to define what we mean by hard bargaining, work out how we are to achieve it and what the bargaining unit is to be, and give encouragement to the people up and down the land who are grappling with the problem and trying to achieve bargains which will, we hope, reduce the unfortunate strikes and restrictive practices. That can only be done by a positive and direct incentive to increase the effects of plant bargaining on our system.
  7.59 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I make only one comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). There are great dangers if we dismiss national agreements altogether, as he apparently wishes to do. If we switch over completely to the idea of plant bargaining and base all our conception upon it, there are very grave dangers of which many of us are conscious.
  I want to refer briefly to a section of the Report which has not yet been discussed but which is of real importance. I am somewhat disappointed that no reference has been made to it so far. It is the short and perhaps casual chapter on workers' participation in management. I am not surprised that there is so little
  1342
  reference to it, but at the present time it is of great importance. It seems to me that men and women in industry at all levels, especially perhaps younger people, feel that they are treated merely as pawns in our present-day industrial society.
  Major revolutionary changes in industry and enormous changes in management take place, often with co-operation and, indeed, pressure from the Government that they should do so. Takeovers and reorganisation take place; new processes are installed. All these things take place without the men and women engaged in the industry feeling that they have any part to play or that they have been consulted. They are fortunate if some information is given to them at a very late date. But it is not a question of information. It is a feeling which they often have that they are completely isolated from the processes of that industry. In these circumstances, how can they be encouraged to feel any responsibility for the industry concerned?
  The main responsibility here lies on management, as many speakers have already mentioned. There have been many criticisms in the past about the lack of proper channels of communication between management and employees and the trade union movement. But it is fair to add that there must be criticisms about the lack of communication between different levels within the trade union movement. It is unfortunately all too frequently true that many on the shop floor are not adequately kept in touch with negotiations which are proceeding and information that is available at top trade union levels. This is one reason why, in discussing workers' participation in management, I am not surprised that the Commission do not feel desperately enthusiastic about the idea of direct representation of the trade union movement, by election of a particular number of representatives, at board and other levels. This gives the whole process such a structural status that it is unlikely to provide the kind of human contact about which we are concerned.
  That is why I am more interested, as the Commission appears to to be, in the possibilities that the Ministry, under its new title and Minister, can encourage the trade union movement to play a much bigger part than it has in the past in areas that have often been looked upon as the

  1343
  pure preserve of management as such— matters of efficiency, productivity and so on. I hope and believe that the new Ministry can play an important new rôle in this sphere. That is why I disagree with those who have dismissed the development of the new Ministry and the new Department set up under it. I believe that this is one of the most fruitful and hopeful signs. The new Ministry can play an important rôle if my right hon. Friend takes as vigorous a part as I believe that she can.
  There are many examples to stress this point. I find, among trade union branches where I have been discussing some of these matters recently, that there is a great anxiety and desire to argue about ways in which better agreements can be reached through greater efficiency in different services, including, to take a topical case, the municipal busmen. In many towns the busmen are putting forward coherent practical proposals for improving the efficiency of the service that they are running. It would be a deep disappointment to me if they were not able to secure the practical application of these proposals and the benefits to which they are entitled simply because national agreements may stand in their way. I hope that this will not be true. It seems, from the agreement which has been reached with the London busmen, that this is not necessarily so.
  This is merely one example of a union where there are real and obvious difficulties, but where many of the members of that union have made it clear that they appreciate the need for change in their areas, have played a considerable part to achieve that change, and have not tied themselves to old approaches and old narrower attitudes of their responsibilities.
  I believe that we are here being offered a more hopeful approach towards worker participation in industry, if fully exploited, than in the older concepts. There have been many experiments abroad and, to a minor extent, at home concerning the various forms of election of representatives from the trade union movement on to boards or on to particular local managements. In those cases, it seems that those who are ostensibly representing the trade union movement on the board cease
  1344
  to have effective contact with their members, with the result that there has been a kind of stultification which has caused anxiety in the industries concerned. They may be useful members of the board on their own qualifications, but that is another matter. The question of their providing any useful representation of their membership is extremely doubtful.
  Therefore, the prospect of the new Ministry making a useful contribution, through bringing the union membership as near to shop floor level as possible into the actual discussion of the practical issues that affect trade union members, is far more hopeful, and widening the scope rather than concentrating upon the aspects which have been discussed in the past. For that reason, I have the greatest hope that the Ministry will follow this new and more promising line, which may help to some extent to mitigate the frustration which exists and is growing amongst trade unionists, particularly amongst the younger trade unionists, in some cases against their own leadership as well as against management today.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. David Lane: If anyone takes a bird's-eye view of Britain today, I doubt whether there is any sector of our national life, apart from the machinery of government itself, that is more urgently due for modernisation than industrial relations.
  Plainly, there is a need for a shift in view from negative to positive; from a defensive to a more offensive outlook. There is also a need to correct a situation in which too often the general public feel powerless while powerful interests, whether employers or trade unions, are taking decisions that vitally affect millions of people.
  I welcome the Donovan Report as a Report that is good as far as it goes. If many on this side feel that it should go further, I hope that we will not be accused by hon. Gentlemen opposite— I am sorry that the right hon. Lady seemed to descend to this level in her opening speech—of wishing in any way to hamstring the trade unions or cut them down to size. I accept what several hon. Members have already said, that the main responsibility for industrial relations has been, is and will remain that of management. If we are dissatisfied

  1345
  for various reasons with the present state of industrial relations, there are plenty of faults on both sides. I would not like to apportion blame in any degree between one and the other, and I am certain that any reform has to bear just as effectively on the employers as on the trade unions
  I want to join in the tributes which have been paid to the invaluable work of "the Commission in analysis as well as in the proposals that it makes for reform. There are three things in particular that I welcome. First, there is its emphasis on plant and company bargaining. Here we have had several recent examples of the more positive approach which we all want. I am particularly glad that two of them happened to be in the two industries in which I used to work, the steel industry and the oil industry—the recent announcement of the new productivity agreement at Port Talbot for the old Steel Company of Wales, and some years ago the agreement at the oil refinery at Fawley.
  Secondly, I welcome the proposals in the Report which will increase the significance of registration of both employers' associations and trade unions. One or two hon. Members have not liked this, but it seems to me that we shall get out of this the same sort of beneficial effects in industrial relations as we have had in respect of commercial agreements in the last few years since the registration of restrictive trade agreements has been in operation under previous legislation.
  The third point I welcome is the suggestion by the Commission that the union structure needs further streamlining. Paragraph 682 of the Report says:
  "We consider that there is scope for many more mergers between unions. In particular, it seems to us that problems caused by a multiplicity of unions organising in individual factories would be considerably eased in a number of important industries if certain groups of craft unions could be induced to amalgamate. This is particularly true of engineering and of construction."
  I hope that that trend will be given a strong impetus by the Report. I do not think that anyone would go all the way with the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) in what he said about white-collar unions, but even if we do not do that, more recognition and a bigger place have to go to the white-collar
  1346
  unions, and I hope that this ill-timed dispute in the steel industry about white-collar union recognition will soon be settled.
  Having picked out those three points which I heartily welcome, perhaps I might mention three or four other points about which I feel disappointed. The first is the lack of urgency, and this was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr). The Donovan Report seems to be saying that the movement towards plant and company bargaining can go along at its own pace, and that when the collective bargaining system has been reformed then will be the time to look again at whether we need stronger legal provisions. This is paying too little attention to the disappointingly slow progress which has been made on both sides in recent years in voluntary ways of bringing up to date our system of industrial relations. There have been good intentions on both the employers' and the trade union side, but we have had precious little action. At the same time as these voluntary changes are made, the external framework of the law needs to be strengthened.
  Secondly, I am disappointed at the outright rejection by the Commission of the argument that agreements should be enforceable at law unless the parties decide otherwise. This is a highly controversial and difficult matter. It is hard to be sure whether one is right or wrong, but I do not find the Donovan reasons altogether convincing. There are lessons which we can learn from other countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) made the point about the advantage of moving to a "contracting out" situation in this regard, and perhaps I might quote one other, I hope impartial, witness on this, Lord Beeching. I trust I can call upon him as a witness who has no party political bias, because in the early part of his article he was equally rude about both parties and their efforts at economic management. In the Observer last Sunday he said, among many powerful remarks on the Donovan Report:
  "I believe a new legislative framework would help the unions to serve everybody better, by restoring discipline within their ranks.
  Meanwhile, in the absence of this sort of thoughtful, sensible restraint, you have to resort in the end to much cruder methods."

  1347
  A third reason why I am disappointed is because of the rather half-baked proposal in the Report for a new Industrial Relations Act. If we are to do this at all, we need to go further. I believe very strongly, as my right hon. Friend said, that it would be valuable to write into any such Act a code of good industrial practice. This could be a helpful influence which could be brought in in particular situations by both employers and trade unions. The Report in paragraph 203 talks about guidance to the Industrial Relations Commission. It lays down nearly a full page of principles of what it has in mind, and I think that we should go further and write some kind of code on these lines into the Industrial Relations Act.
  My last point of criticism is that at the end of the Report we seem to be left with an untidy proliferation of bodies which will be active in industrial relations. There are the labour tribunals and the new review body suggested as a means of dealing with disputes between trade unions and their members; there is the new Industrial Relations Commission, or whatever we call it; there is the proposed retention of the present Industrial Court with wider powers; there is the continuing use of the ordinary courts in many other circumstances surrounding industrial disputes; and brooding over them all there is the Department of Employment and Productivity. I think that we shall do better to concentrate the functions in fewer bodies, particularly on the lines of the Industrial Courts which my party has proposed.
  To sum up, perhaps I might remind the House of the parallels with the other great problem we recently debated, that of race relations. The law has a part to play in industrial relations, but it must be a subordinate and not a central part. A stronger legal framework is only part of the answer for which we are looking, and I put even more stress, as others have, on the general improvement of human relations in industry day by day in other than legal ways.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned the need for better communications. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart referred to the need for higher calibre and better paid trade union
  1348
  officials, and I would add higher calibre and better paid people on the management side to deal with the problems, because they must remain management problems first of all.
  I am somewhat disappointed with the Donovan Report. I am disappointed, too, with the complacent speech of the right hon. Lady, and I look forward to what the Minister will say when he replies. Now that the two main parties have grasped this nettle, I hope that we shall not be afraid to carry on boldly into action, because in doing so we shall have the public behind us. If this Government fail to do so, it must be left to the next Government to take action.
  I hope that this Report and debate are the start of a new chapter. I hope that by the end of it industry will be more productive and more harmonious, and that we shall have taken a big step forward towards the goal which we all wish, a high-efficiency, high-wage economy.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. Michael McGuire: I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) will forgive me if I do not follow him and cover all the ground that he did. I propose to comment only on that part of his speech in which he referred, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), to the poor rewards which trade union officials at branch, factory, district, and even national level receive for their labours.
  I do not know whether this is a good thing or not. It is probably good, in the sense that most trade union officials start at the bottom, and do so without expecting any great rewards at the end of the day. Holding such a job is an honourable thing. Whether they should be paid more on the basis that their members demand better conditions and higher rates of pay is a different matter, but there is some force in the argument that they should.
  I start by echoing the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) who said that in many ways what we are doing today in discussing this Report is paying tribute to the ideals, the aspirations, the hopes, and indeed the courage of the pioneers of our great trade union

  1349
  movement. I think that we are, because their dreams have now largely become realities, and I hope that the Report will make them even more real.
  I am proud to belong to the National Union of Mineworkers. I am a paid-up member. I must be one of the few paid-up trade unionist Members of Parliament. I am six months in advance.
  Mr. Bidwell: I am 12 months in advance.
  Mr. McGuire: I concede that my hon. Friend is better than I am in that respect.
  My union's history can be said to have been written in blood, sweat, toil, tears and man's inhumanity to man, coupled with the tremendous courage of the pioneer workers. It is worth reflecting that many recommendations in the Report have already been applied in the mining industry—certainly since nationalisation.
  According to the Report there are many things which would improve industrial relations, efficiency and our economy if implemented. This comment is justified by the recent history of the National Union of Mineworkers, working with the National Coal Board. If ever in industry had a shocking strike record, a shocking safety record and a shocking industrial relations record—industrial relations were almost non-existent—it was the pre-nationalisation coal industry. We have now moved into a period in which, although many things remain to be done, a great deal has been done.
  The Report analyses the election and operations of trade union officers, such as shop stewards, conciliation and dispute procedures, and the gamut of industrial relations. The experience of the mining industry proves that if the recommendations proposed are applied humanely, properly and decently there will be a tremendous reduction in the number of disputes.
  I want to be fair to the "grass rooters" on this side of the House, and I shall not speak for much longer. I want to refer, however, to what the Report says about the merits of a national agreement as opposed to a factory agreement. The N.U.M. believes strongly in national agreements. It also believes very strongly that one cause of dispute is the agreement which is open to various
  1350
  interpretations. Variable rates of pay must be made in respect of piece workers. The miners have solved the problem by having a power-loaded agreement. We have a national wage agreement and also a national piece work agreement, with the result that much less production is lost from wages disputes.
  In the old days the difficulties were with the piece workers and not with the day workers. With the new system coal losses have fallen in two years from an average of 1½ million tons to only about 300,000 tons. Many people argue that a factory agreement is best, but our experience shows that a good national agreement is something to be envied. That is not to say that productivity agreements cannot be discussed at local level, within the framework of a good national agreement. I am referring only to my experiences in the mining industry.
  The important thing about disputes in the pits, for example, is that they should be dealt with quickly. Far too often we have a rosy agreement with lots of details and long-winded arrangements about conciliation going into the dim and distant future. In my experience, it is best to get local disputes solved quickly, and to have good local labour relations. The big disputes can wait a little longer, but most of the unofficial pinpricks need to be settled speedily, on the spot. If they are the number of unofficial strikes is reduced.
  The Report largely vindicates the.aspirations, ideals and aims of trade unions. I look forward to debating the White Paper and even more keenly to debating the legislation that will flow from it. If we implement the recommendations in the Report we shall have a much improved industrial relations system—a system to be envied, and one which I hope the Labour Government will be able to say they have created in their lifetime. It will be the envy of the world.
  8.27 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: I go a long way with what has been said by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) on a number of points concerning the need to deal promptly and on the spot with local issues, before they blow up into something big. I am

  1351
  not going to argue with him on the question whether national agreements are always better than factory agreements. What comes out clearly from this informed and constructive debate is that there is room for both types of agreement. We must not be rigid on this matter. There may be a good national framework, and this may be sufficient in the mining industry, but in smaller industries—the boot and shoe industry, for example—the plant agreement, with productivity written in, is most important.
  It has been a pleasure to hear so many constructive views put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and in this connection it was most unfortunate that the right hon. Lady the Minister adopted the tone she did at the beginning of her speech. It was not worthy of a debate of this character. I heard her say that my right hon. Friend was rushing in before the ink was dry. That was very unfair.
  The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) said how right it was that the Opposition had given up their time today to discuss this matter. The question of industrial relations is at the heart of our economic salvation. The Minister made much play about the civil remedies, to which my right hon. Friend had referred and she had clearly not done her homework in reading "Fair Deal at Work". She did not understand what she was talking about.
  Perhaps I can distinguish these civil remedies from those in the Prices and Incomes Bill which we voted against. It may be asked why I was not prepared to impose the penalties and civil remedies in that Bill, yet think that there is a rôle for civil remedies in this context. The distinction is clear. Any civil remedies for breach of an agreement need not be enforced by the employer. If both have made an agreement binding and one breaks it, there may be a remedy for either party but they can seek to enforce it or not. There might be instances of mass breaches when it would not be in the employers' interests to take hundreds of people to court, disturbing industrial relations to get limited damages. But, in the prices and incomes context, the Government are bound to enforce their penalty Clauses; otherwise they lose the incomes policy. This distinction is valid.
  1352
  I want to confine myself to that part of the Report dealing with procedural and collective agreements, which has been called woolly. It has been said that the recommendations that there should be no change in the law about enforceability of agreements were the unanimous opinion of the Commission, but, as my right hon. Friend said, that is just not so.
  The dissenting voices against leaving things completely unchanged were those of Lord Robens, Sir George Pollock, Lord Tangley, Mr. Thomson and Mr. Andrew Shonfield. These were powerful voices, and Lord Donovan himself cast a good deal of doubt upon whether the change should now be made, before finally coming down on the side of the other members of the Commission in saying that a change will be necessary, but not now. I ask, if not now, when? The right hon. Lady said, when the bargaining system has been put right, but which comes first, the cart or the horse?
  I start my approach to industrial relations and agreements from the point of what I believe is right in the interests of employees, employers and the whole nation, and not from the history of these transactions and labour relations over the last 100 years. What do we want to do in the interest of these three groups which have a joint interest in harmonious relationships and extra productivity, earnings, profits and exports? There is no real gap and a good deal of common ground between the two sides of the House. Our aims are the same. We must get rid of the Victorian stagecoach attitude. We are trying to fit a jet engine into that coach and we wonder why it does not work. Let us build a modern chassis adapted to today's demands; then we will get progress and the results which the nation needs and deserves.
  I am fortunate, because both in my business associations and in my constituency are industries which have had happy labour relations over a long period. Two are the hosiery and footwear industries. They have been more fortunate because they are mainly small units, not vast groupings, so management and the shop floor have always been close. There has been a great personal link. Troubles can be sorted out on the spot. Also, union leadership in both industries has been first class, responsible in its fight for a

  1353
  fair deal for its members, but without jeopardising its industries. There is a sense of mutual trust and confidence which, all hon. Members will agree, is the basis for good industrial relations.
  But this happy pattern cannot and does not apply throughout. Bigger groupings mean more remoteness and misunderstanding. Therefore, I support the need for agreements between employers and employees which are clear, which set out the terms of the employment clearly and concisely, which are freely entered into and which both parties can agree to be legally binding. I stress that they should be legally binding only if both parties agree. We do not suggest that the law should make the agreements legally binding, but there would be real advantages if they were binding.
  Suppose someone were asking for a quotation to paint his house and one man quoted a price but said, "I may knock off halfway through and not finish unless you pay any price which I then ask", while another man quoted a firm, although higher, price. All hon. Members would immediately take the higher but firm price. Similarly, in industrial collective bargaining, there is much to be gained by both sides from firm bargains which both agree will be binding, so that the employers can offer terms in the certainty that they will be implemented, and the unions can offer terms in the certainty of a higher return.
  A good deal is to be gained from this. I would urge that part of my right hon. Friend's excellent proposals in "Fair Deal at Work" as highly commendable. It is in line with the only sensible and constructive part of this Report, the Andrew Shonfield addendum note. To me, this makes a great deal of sense. The rest of the Report is woolly. There are notes of dissent throughout and, at best, so much of it is little more than a compromise. It does not go to the heart of the problem.
  Once more I express my regret that the right hon. Lady evaded the issues. She did not try to put before the House a constructive and positive interpretation of how she saw industrial relations going but, instead, tried to attack and distort the policy which has been put forward so constructively by this side.
  8.39 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Fletcher: I believe that this is the first occasion in my four years' experience here that the House has given a full Parliamentary day to the subject of industrial relations. Hon. Members on both sides will probably agree that this is a question of key importance for our future economic development.
  I confess that when the members of the Commission were appointed in 1965 I shared the apprehension of many members of the trade union movement about the outcome. There was a fear, particularly in view of the composition of the Commission, that new restrictions and impediments would be placed on trade union activities. The idea had already been propagated by hon. Members opposite that we would have trouble with the trade unions, and there were even one or two hon. Members on this side who adopted the same point of view.
  When the Commission was established, the trade unions thought that they might have another fight on their hands, following the great history of fights to overcome the Osborne judgment, the Taff Vale judgment and the 1927 Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act. Trade unionists thought that the Commission might very well produce suggestions for anti-trade union legislation.
  In view of the climate of hostility in recent years, the trade unions possibly had good grounds for suspecting the outcome of the review. That the Commission has not fallen into this trap has given a good deal of satisfaction to trade unionists. Although there is still much to debate on the detailed application of the recommendations, the Report will, on the whole, be received favourably by members of the trade unions. The Report contains many positive suggestions that will no doubt help them.
  The Report suffers, perhaps, from a too academic approach to the subject of workshop relations. It smells a little of Civil Service ink or, perhaps, of the old port of a dons' common room in a university. This may be understandable, because as far as I know not one member of the Commission has had experience of negotiating agreements on the shop floor, but the result is that certain assumptions are made that are not valid for the man who gets his living on the shop floor.

  1355
  For instance, the Report says:
  "The central defect "—
  the central defect, be it noted:
  "in British industrial relations is the disorder in factory and workshop relations and pay structures promoted by the conflict between the formal and informal systems."
  The formal system means national agreements, and the informal system means the workshop agreements. One can see there the tidy mind that wants everything tied up in an agreement, but thousands of agreements are made every day in engineering workshops between rate fixers and operatives, and there are many local agreements based on individual factories. I am extremely doubtful whether that system could go further than it goes now.
  Let us take the engineering industry as an example. This industry employs about three million people. About two million of them—operatives and manual workers—are on productive work. Most of them are on piece work or time work or bonus rates, and practically every day thousands of rate fixers are engaged on producing prices based on time or price for the operatives. As a consequence, every year millions of agreements are reached on the factory floor. Those agreements have no legal framework, nor would it be possible to put them in a legal framework. They will never be registered with a Ministry, as the Report suggests. In many cases, they are purely verbal agreements on a price for a particular job affecting an individual or a group of individuals. As a consequence, this debate on the question of national agreements as against factory agreements is rather unreal because there is a place for both. In many factories shop stewards are negotiating on holidays, hourly rates, redundancy and all other items day by day with the management.
  The alternative which has been set up by the Commission is rather unreal, but it raises a very interesting question. With the emphasis on factory agreements, the Report says:
  "A factory agreement can assist competent managers—many current industry-wide agreements have become an hindrance to them ".
  Yet it is work priced and based on national agreements. Rates in the engineering industry are so absurdly low that shop stewards start by pricing a job on
  1356
  time plus 100 per cent., but there has to be a basis of a national agreement to begin timing the job.
  If we are to have factory-wide agreements in prosperous industries with assured markets, or in a monopolistic position such as I.C.I., they can afford to pay comparatively high rates as against others which are not so prosperous and in which the wage rates are low. A man who sweeps the floor at the Ford Motor Company works may get £18 a week plus £5 overtime, but a man who sweeps the streets in Newcastle-upon-Tyne may get £10 a week. We ought to demand equal pay for work of equal value. Skilled engineers in Coventry and the South of England are getting £4 or £5 more per week than skilled engineers on Tyneside and Teesside.
  The Commission does not deal with these anomalies. A civil servant, town clerk, doctor or a lawyer, wherever he is stationed in the country, gets the rate for the job; yet the anomaly persists that in certain parts of the country in industry rates are very much higher than in other parts of the country. Factory-wide agreements may lead to an extension of this differential. We must recognise that wage rates are determined to some extent by the supply of labour. When skill is in short supply prices tend to be high, and the price of labour tends to be high. If there is an abundance of labour, wage rates tend to be low. As a consequence we see an imbalance in our economy when more emphasis is put on factory agreements and less emphasis on national agreements.
  I want to say a word about a matter in which I have an interest as a former official of the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union. We welcome the emphasis that the Report has given to organisation of clerical workers. At last, after many years of agitation, the Report suggests that the notorious Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit Society should be abolished, or, if not abolished, should not be allowed to restrict its membership to people who are not members of a trade union. This organisation has been deliberately used by employers who pay half the contribution—a free gift of half the contribution—to the foreman or clerical worker who joins the organisation on the stipulation that he

  1357
  must not become a member of a trade union. This was done deliberately with the intention of keeping clerical staff and administrative workers outside the scope of the trade union movement. It is a progressive step that the recommendation has been made.
  The general question of recognition must be tackled. The dispute which has occurred in the steel industry is now under discussion by a committee of inquiry. Before the steel industry was nationalised, the employers circulated notices to their staff urging them not to join a trade union. Many high officials in the now nationalised industry signed letters asking staff not to become members of the appropriate trade unions.
  If there is to be an intelligent approach to industrial relations, there must be an acceptance by employers that trade unions are here to stay. There must be no restriction on the right of individuals to be represented by a union of their choice. The union must be free to negotiate with management. This comes out clearly from the Report; and we accept it.
  I commend the Report. I think that it will be acceptable to the trade union movement as a whole. It has probably been received with a groan by some hon. Members opposite. It may not be received with three cheers by members of the trade union movement. It will certainly be received with two and a half cheers. There is much in the Report to commend itself to the trade union movement. I am glad that we have had an opportunity of discussing industrial relations. I hope that my right hon. Friends agree that this subject is as important as any other economic subject that we discuss in the House and that there will be other opportunities for us to ventilate our views.
  8.52 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Holland: I, too, am glad that we have had an opportunity to discuss the subject of industrial relations, because it is a most important subject. Perhaps understandably, a number of hon. Members have been preoccupied with industrial unrest rather than with industrial relations. I know that this is a matter which is of great concern to the country and to each one of us, but, there is a large area in industry where in-
  1358
  dustrial unrest is unknown. Many firms and many employees have never experienced a strike. I have had no such experience, although I have served in many different capacities in industry and as recently as from 1964, when I lost my seat, to 1966, when I returned here, I was a personnel manager for an electronics company. Incidentally, I always think that the term "personnel manager" is a misnomer, because one is not a manager. One is a middleman to establish contact between the employee and the board of management.
  Industrial relations, with industrial unrest as an unhappy by-product, are concerned mainly with the establishment of good will and understanding on the broad issues. In this context, I regret that Donovan makes no mention of a proposal for the establishment of a code of good industrial relations. I know that some people will ask: what good would this be, if it did not have the force of law? The Highway Code, although it does not make good drivers, is a standard by which driving can be judged. The behaviour of a driver who is taken to court can be judged against the precepts laid down in the Highway Code.
  There is a strong case, as we suggest in "Fair Deal at Work", for a code of industrial relations to be formalised and accepted, so that, should any case go to an industrial tribunal, a court of inquiry, or to arbitrators, the activities of those concerned can be judged against the standards laid down in the code. This would have an extremely beneficial effect and I am sorry that the Donovan Report made no mention of it, particularly as the Report insisted that the responsibility for industrial relations rested mainly on the voluntary system. I would have thought that a code of good industrial relations practice would help towards that end and would support the; voluntary system.
  A criticism of our own "Fair Deal" proposals is that it lays insufficient emphasis on the voluntary system, but it would be helpful if people reading the two documents, the Donovan Report and "Fair Deal at Work", would remember that they were written from slightly different standpoints. The Donovan Report was prepared on the basis of investigating the activities of trade unions and employers' associations;

  1359
  our document merely tried to spell out what we thought a Government ought to do, and in this context we did not lay much emphasis on the voluntary system, although that does not mean that we do not believe that the nub of the problem lies in the voluntary system, for, of course, it does.
  Industrial relations have always been on a voluntary basis, but it is not true that they have always been entirely on a voluntary basis, because there has been a good deal of trade union law. We want not a proliferation of trade union legislation, but a framework of industrial relations, not specifically singling out trade unions, but covering the whole of industrial relations, with minimum requirements, minimum legislation providing a framework within which the voluntary system can work. The purpose is not to weaken but to strengthen the voluntary system within that framework of law, and the main purpose of "Fair Deal at Work" is to strengthen the authority of the constitutional trade union leadership and to weaken the unofficial and irresponsible elements.
  I take exception to an earlier remark about irresponsible shop stewards, because in my experience—and I have had some experience of shop stewards— I have found them very responsible. It is mainly the unofficial element which is irresponsible, not those who are formally elected to office. Our purpose in "Fair Deal" is to try to tilt the balance of power in favour of those who want to act responsibly and equally against those who wish to act irresponsibly, and I do not think that anyone would quarrel with that general aim and purpose.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: In my necessarily brief contribution, I want to avoid issues which have already been exhaustively considered. There will be many sensational domestic matters which will come before the House, but none more important than that of race relations—I should have said "industrial relations"; I have been so heavily involved in race relations that the two words have an almost automatic association.
  The central disappointment of the Opposition with the Donovan Report must be its brilliant and devastating turn-
  1360
  ing down of the Opposition's proposals for legislation. I am reminded of the arguments under the old Combination Acts when it was said that one employer represented many workers. We now live in a democratic society and we must pin our faith and hope on a democratic involvement and a voluntary system. There have been references to the Prices and Incomes Act and its punitive Clauses, but that legislation has never been advanced as an absolute entity, or as a permanent situation, although some of us, particularly on this side of the House, have said that it seems to have almost a temporary permanency. It is not an ideal situation, however, and it is generally regressive and we hope that we shall rapidly move away from it.
  I bring to this debate a background of experience as a trade union education officer and as a full-time organiser of the National Council of Labour Colleges for ten years and, for two years before coming to the House, the T.U.C. regional education officer in the London area when the work of the N.C.L.C. was taken over by the T.U.C. That is why I am particularly disappointed with the aspect of the Report that just hints the educational activities of the trade unions. It does not list them, although I know that a considerable weight of evidence was put before the Commission. I am rather surprised that with the presence of George Woodcock and people like Mr. Clegg, who have been involved in trade union education, far more emphasis was not put on it.
  There are widespread educational activities within the unions themselves. In conjunction with the Workers' Educational Association, it was one of my duties before coming to the House to promote shop steward management studies within industry. Sometimes they were done in the employer's time exclusively and sometimes on a 50–50 basis, with one hour of the employer's time and one hour of the worker's. One hopes that in the future this kind of activity will be extended. Sometimes there would be an attitude of mind amongst stewards that they did not want anything to do with such studies. They thought that it was brainwashing by the management and so on. But when they could get a break from the bench and benefit from the education, which was sometimes

  1361
  about the history of the company, including its financial structure, they felt that it was of overall benefit to them as trade union representatives, and having sampled it they became widly enthusiastic about it.
  My right hon. Friend, who now commands a Ministry with a new title and a new purpose, which I applaud and support, said at the beginning that she would listen attentively to the debate. For some reason, she has not been here to listen, but I hope that she will give rapt attention to what has been said in this very important debate. Shop stewards are the most important layer of trade union officialdom; it is the shop stewards in the trade union movement that make or mar it, and in the long run make or mar industrial relations and harmonious development in the future.
  I said in my General Election address that I supposed that the Labour Government, because of its history, because it stems from the trade union movement, could bring about a much more harmonious relationship, and would bring out a much better voluntary spirit in the trade union movement than the party opposite could. The debate has shown that there is widespread experience on this side of the House which hon. Members opposite do not have. There is considerable experience of industrial management and ownership of industry among them, but on this side of the House there is not only considerable trade union experience, but also considerable managerial experience. Therefore, the major contribution seems to have come from this side of the House.
  I commend to the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) the story told in Appendix 6 of the Report about the Betteshanger situation in 1941. If in 1941, when the war had been on for two years, a legislative club could not be wielded, we do lot stand a cat in hell's chance in the present position in modern British industry. There must be voluntary measures whatever régime we have.
  I should like to return briefly to the emphasis on shop stewards' training in industry, because the Ministry, particularly under a Labour Government, must have a more; expansive attitude than it has now. Why should not the Ministry of Employment and Productivity have a college where it can not only spend, as it does,
  1362
  State moneys on industrial management but also consider the possibility of spending State moneys on shop stewards, particularly concerning bargaining in industry, because it is on the basis of our productive strength that our country's future relies?
  9.5 p.m.
  Sir Keith Joseph: Despite the strictures of the right hon. Lady the Minister that we had asked for this debate somewhat prematurely, a number of hon. Members opposite, and certainly on this side of the House, have welcomed the opportunity to comment on the Donovan Royal Commission. I do not know what the right hon. Lady thought we should do. Did she think that we should have asked for a debate in August or September? If the House was to have any influence on the preparation of the White Paper which is promised for the end of this year, we had to take an early opportunity for a debate. The House must recognise that there is public impatience about this whole interlocking complex of very difficult issues.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) has already welcomed the work of the Royal Commission. There is certainly a great deal in its Report which is valuable by way of analysis and some positive proposals which we can endorse. But before I embark on what are inevitably some of the differences which divide us, I wish to point out—and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) emphasised this—that in practically all the industrial establishments of this country there is, practically all the time, peace and co-operation between management and workers. We are apt to forget that because, naturally, we concentrate on the trouble spots.
  I suppose that there are a few hundred or a very few thousands of work places where there are occasionally troubles and a few score of work places where there are frequent troubles. But the point stressed by Mr. Shonfield, in his brilliant reservation at the end of the Report, is valid in considering the impact of these troubles. The growing inter-dependence of different links of industry and commerce makes even occasional troubles very disruptive to the nation and extremely damaging to the housewife, the

  1363
  consumer and the public in general as well as to management and workers.
  If there are a few hundred places where there is trouble and a few score of places where there is frequent trouble, we must assume from our general knowledge that there is an unknown number of thousands of work places where there may be peace but where there are also restrictive labour practices which reduce the earnings of the workers and increase the costs of the goods. These restrictive labour practices may exist because management is indifferent to them or because it has not been able to strike the right bargain with the workers to get rid of them, or because the workers are so tough in their defence of them that no management this side of Heaven could eliminate or reduce them. Although there are restrictive labour practices in probably a minority of our work places, their effect on our competitive rôle in the world is very damaging.
  Therefore, we have a generally peaceful industrial background with the emphasis of the country, of this House and of the Government naturally focused on the minority of places where there is either frequent or occasional trouble with grave disruptive consequences.
  All of us on this side of the House are ready to accept what the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) and other hon. Members were anxious to emphasise—that the prime responsibility for industrial relations, and certainly for eliminating restrictive labour practices, falls on management. There is, of course, a wide range of ability in management just as there is in any classification of human beings.
  I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) who, in my judgment absolutely rightly, criticised managements who surrender to unofficial pressures what they have refused to official negotiations. That way lies disaster. The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton), in a very objective speech, reminded us, however, that there are a number of excellent managements. He paid tribute to some of them.
  I am sorry that because of an unavoidable obligation I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tot-
  1364
  nes (Mr. Mawby) who said, I gather, a number of shrewd and wise things about management practices and reminded us that sensible managements will welcome the vigorous work of well-defined shop stewards. There was much in his speech which I shall want to read.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) was absolutely right in reminding the Government benches that the Government have a responsibility as manager as well as Government and that judging from the Royal Commission, and more so from Mr. Aubrey Jones and the Prices and Incomes Board, there are many fields of Government management which are not a credit to the Government as employers.
  With that introduction, I come to the main points of disagreement. First, we would like to emphasise far more than the Royal Commission does the importance of an attack on restrictive labour practices. We on this side do not go along with Mr. Schonfield's reservation in this respect. We do not think that restrictive labour practices are a factor in which the law can be introduced. There is too much ill-defined subjective judgment. There are too many variations in work practices, even in the best conditions of co-operation. We say that it is the job of the Government to ensure that there is such competition, whether internally or by way of reduced tariffs, if necessary, that management cannot afford to be indifferent to restrictive labour practices.
  Once management has had its nose rubbed in the damage that restrictive labour practices do to the earnings of workers, investors and managers and to the costs of consumers, management will be stimulated to bargain away or in some other way reduce the restrictive labour practices.
  Sir Cyril Osborne: Or be driven bankrupt.
  Sir K. Joseph: That is the pressure of competition. That is the ultimate sanction of the competitive situation—a sanction which, alas, is not available to public enterprise. It has no effect on public enterprise.—[Interruption.] I marvel at hon. Members opposite who have not recognised the fact that nationalised industry carries this great burden and that there is no self-correcting mechanism

  1365
  built into it as there is in the private enterprise sector of the economy.
  I pass, however, from restrictive labour practices, on which, alas, the Donovan Report has very little of relevance to say, to strikes. Hon. Members opposite have accused this side of the House with being obsessed with strikes. I can only tell hon. Members opposite that if we are obsessed with strikes, so are a large number of the public.
  We have to remind the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen that we on this side are making no suggestion whatever to withdraw the right to strike. He spoke as if "Fair Deal at Work" withdraws the basic right to strike. It does no such thing. We are not seeking to withdraw the right to strike.
  I say to hon. Members opposite that they do no service to the Government or to the country if they seek to underestimate the damage done by strikes and the threat of strikes. The damage cannot be measured, as the Royal Commission makes clear, merely by the number of man days lost, nor by adding to the direct number of man days lost the additional man days lost as a consequence. It is really economically illiterate to dismiss strikes as unimportant because they account for so many fewer man days lost than the number lost through the common cold.
  The fact is that the threat to strike inhibits managers from doing what, in the interests of the workers and the public, they should be doing. The Royal Commission brings this out in paragraph 412, when it says that the threat to strike has a great effect of management's efficiency—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite mean that managers should be stronger in standing up to threats to strike, then I suppose that, in general, I would agree with them.
  Let us concede that there may often, or sometimes, be very understandable human reasons for a strike. My hon. Friends and the public ask that the people concerned, perhaps with all their instincts outraged, should go through the agreed dispute procedure and not subject the workplace to unpredictable lightning strikes, the threat of which is so damaging to the country.
  Mr. Heffer: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are circum-
  1366
  stances in any industrial concern which can at any time give rise to action, perhaps resulting from an employer dismissing a shop steward or a group of workers whom he thinks have acted contrary to the interests of the firm? Would he agree that, in those circumstances, the workers might feel that their only possible action would be to take immediate steps to show solidarity with their mates? In those circumstances, the Conservative Party would say that they are breaking their agreements or contracts and are therefore acting illegally. Is that not denying them the right to strike?
  Sir K. Joseph: I appreciate that it is understandable that they might wish to take some immediate action. We do not propose that they should be in any way penalised—that is, unless they fail to go through the agreed dispute procedure —agreed in a contract which their union has accepted should be enforceable. I will return to this subject.
  The argument is that lightning strikes and disagreements between workers and managers should be eliminated or dealt with by way of agreed dispute procedures. My hon. Friends—and here I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman)—see an increasing place for local and branch bargains in addition to national bargains for those things which make national sense.
  The right hon. Lady listed rapidly a string of desirable subjects for bargains, such as dispute procedure, dismissal and redundancy procedures and productivity agreements. There is a whole range of subjects about which to bargain and my hon. Friends want the maximum number of agreed constructive bargains. Indeed, that is what we all want.
  We believe that at the moment an increase in the number of such bargains is discouraged and not encouraged by the law. Here I appropriate, with acknowledgements, a comment made by Lord Tangley in his reservations at the end of the Report, in which he says that at present managements are discouraged from making bargains because they are so one-sided. If a management departs from its bargain, then the employees can take action, officially or unofficially. If they wish to do that, there are no restraints on them at the moment. But if

  1367
  the employees break their side of the bargain, there is nothing, short of dismissals, which make matters worse, that a management can usefully do. I accept at once that there are plenty of bargains that are not one-sided because they are honourably obeyed by both sides, but these tend to be not in the turbulent part of industry but in the parts of industry where there is peace and co-operation. What we and the country are worried about is the breaking of bargains, or the lack of bargains, in that sector of the economy, and it is quite a large one—I will not go through the industries, the Royal Commission lists them—where there is a certain amount of turbulence.
  We therefore want to get agreements. We think at the moment that agreements are discouraged because they are one-sided. Here we come to the main difference between the two sides of the House. The Royal Commission says that the way to get more bargains is to have an Industrial Relations Commission. I will not venture on different initials for it; we fall into the quicksands there. That is what the Royal Commission recommends, and I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) some distaste for the proliferation of bodies recommended by the Royal Commission Report. The question that the House has to ask itself and that the Government have to ask themselves is whether the Industrial Relations Commission will provide any guarantee whatsoever that the bargains made under its approval will be observed. Is there any greater likelihood that an agreement which has been approved by the Industrial Relations Commission will be observed than there is now? This is the question that the Government must ask themselves.
  The Royal Commission Report is filled with an almost antique amount of exhortation. My party on this side of the House is criticised in the country for having allowed more than a decade of government to go by filled with Ministers of Labour, many of them now adorning this Front Bench, who went in for exhortation, "And", says the country, "a fat lot of good it did". Now we have a Royal Commission of the greatest
  1368
  quality of mind who go in for more exhortation.
  Mr. Orme: That is not the trouble with the country at all.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point if I had said that it is the only trouble of the country, but certainly we are criticised for having exhorted and exhorted and for having done nothing more.
  In contrast to the proposal of the Royal Commission to have an Industrial Relations Commission, we want to "bring unions within the law", and I quote here my right hon. Friend's phrase. The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State says that the Royal Commission rejected our main proposal of bringing unions within the law, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in that I do not think there is nearly such a gap between the Royal Commission and "Fair Deal at Work" as the right hon. Lady suggests. There are many points of agreement between the Royal Commission and "Fair Deal at work"; but what is more important in this part of the argument is that time and again the Royal Commission says that maybe the law will have to be changed, but not until agreements are more sensible and fair.
  We would agree with that. The enforcement of bad agreements would be bad law. We say that the Industrial Relations Commission will not on its own produce the good bargains that it will be fair to enforce if the parties wish them to be enforced. Time and again in the Royal Commission's Report the Commissioners as a whole and the Chairman in his reservation refer to the possibility of changing the law towards enforcement if and when the Industrial Relations Commission has improved the general quality of the branch bargains.
  The question we have to ask is: how do we most economically, in the sense of economy of effort, release the flood of good, fair bargains between management and employees that we all want to see? We are all looking for this mechanism. It is unfair to say what the Government have decided, since they have not yet committed themselves, but the Government are advised by the

  1369
  Royal Commission to find this mechanism in the Industrial Relations Commission, which will have no powers.
  We on this side of the House believe that the release mechanism required for the country is the voluntary enforceability of agreements by civil process. The enforceability that we want is voluntary because, as we make plain, the parties, either or both of them, can lay it down that the agreement or bargain that they are making shall not be enforceable. It is in their power, either or both, to opt out of enforceability. Up to that stage, therefore, it is a voluntary enforceability. Once they have agreed to its enforceability, there is enforceability for the duration of that bargain, but only by their own choice.
  It is an enforceability by civil process; that is to say, an enforceability by way of damages against a management with no limit to the damages, or enforceability against the funds of the union by damages, in this case with a limit to the amount of damages.
  As certain hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, it may be that it is legally open to managements and unions—not trade associations and unions, but managements and unions—to enter into an enforceable bargain now. The Royal Commission says that on page 126 of its Report. It is not for me to argue with the Royal Commission's diagnosis of the law. All that I can say is that managements and unions do not understand the law—[Interruption.] I hoped that the Secretary of State would listen to what I am saying. She has had to be absent during a great deal of the debate for reasons which we understand.
  It may be, as the Royal Commission says, that the law permits enforceable agreements now between the parties, but that is not how managements and unions understand the law, nor is it how the Ministry of Labour, of blessed memory, itself understood it. On page 76 of its written evidence to the Royal Commission, it says:
  "The common opinion is that a contract between a single employer and a trade union would also not be enforced by the courts though this is not specified by statute."
  If it is allowed by law, there is no harm in the Government restating the authority firmly by way of statute.
  1370
  I have explained that the voluntary enforceability which we want to see is one against the unions and not one against the employees. That is why the right hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) was wrong in quoting Betteshanger against us. We recognise that employers now have the right to sue employees and that they do not use it because it would do them no good. We do not hang any faith on the right of employers to sue employees. We do not believe that it would do a ha'porth of good.
  We suggest that unions which enter voluntarily into an enforceable bargain should have their funds exposed to damages if they cannot show that they have done their best to prevent a breach of the agreement that they have made, and that the same enforceability should lie against managements. I emphasise again that this enforceability shall only bite if both parties so wish it. It is open on either to exclude it from their contract.
  It is undeniable that some unions and some officials of some unions already try hard to enforce the bargains that they make—
  Mr. Orme: They are very difficult to get, in the first place.
  Sir K. Joseph: I am sure that it is very difficult to be an official of a trade union. It is difficult, in many cases, to be a manager. I do not pretend that either is easy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) gave us his testimony to the lecture which members of a trade union were subjected to by their officials for having broken a bargain. But Mr. Shonfield in his reservation expresses what we on this side and what many people in the country feel, that some union officials do not do all that they can to prevent breaches of agreements.
  We say that there is an immense incentive to management and unions to come to an enforceable agreement. If they agree that a bargain shall be enforceable, management will be able to afford to concede much more to unions because it will be able to count on co-operation at work, on the use of the dispute procedure, no lightning strikes, and a generally much more co-operative attitude in the work place.

  1371
  On the other hand, the unions will be able to bargain this enforceability against the concessions that they want from management. The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) listed some of them. There are many things that unions want from management, understandably so. Let them trade the enforceability of a fair, firm and speedy dispute procedure and the other things that management wants against some of the things that the unions want. This way lies a real increase in earnings and efficiency for the whole country.
  Enforcement is not a panacea, not a solution to all our problems, and it cannot achieve vast increases overnight in earnings and benefits to the country; but we believe that the prize of peace and co-operation is so great in management's eyes that it will be willing to make bargains of great value and importance to unions and workers. We believe that voluntary enforceability will release a flood of constructive bargaining, even in the trouble spots of the industry of this country.
  The Industrial Relations Commission suggested by the Royal Commission, without enforcement, will produce no great benefit to the country, because there will be no removal of the one-sidedness which prevents management from agreeing now to the sort of bargains that we all want. On the other hand, enforceability, because of the prizes that it will unlock for workers, and through workers for unions, will produce the bargains at the work place and nationally on the future peace and co-operation must depend.
  In view of the arguments which we, on this side, have put forward both here and in "Fair Deal at Work", the widespread support that they have received, and the latent support that is in favour, even in the Royal Commission's Report, of changes in the law, if not now, in the near future, we beg the Government not to dismiss from their mind the voluntary enforceability that we believe is the real release mechanism for prosperity and peace.
  9.33 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The House will recall that
  1372
  at the beginning of the debate my right hon. Friend said that consultations with both sides of industry about the proposals in the Report had now begun. The House will also recall that my right hon. Friend assured the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) that at some point towards the end of the year a White Paper would be presented to the House giving the Government's considered views— considered after those consultations had been completed. The House will realise that, because of the processes which are now under way, it is difficult for me to comment on many of the points made during the debate and it is impossible for me to answer some of the questions. Were I to do that, I would risk the accusation that the consultations are meaningless, that the consideration is over, and that our minds were closed before the talks began. Therefore, some of my hon. Friends in particular, who have raised with my right hon. Friend and me points of the greatest substance, must be content with no more than the assurance that they will be noted. I fear that this is particularly true of the interesting, constructive and imaginative points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford), who said things about trade union amalgamation, the disadvantages of multi-unionism and the desirability of bringing it to a speedy end, which I know my right hon. Friend will want to weigh very carefully.
  Even though I fear that the Government's response to this debate must, by the nature of the occasion, be inadequate, I do not think that any right hon. or hon. Member on either side of the House would regard the debate as conforming to that criterion. After all, we have had the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) urging employers to take note of what the Royal Commission says. On the other hand we had my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) urging trade unions to take note of what it says. If that combination of enthusiasm and devotion was all that the debate achieved, it would have been justified.
  It was not associations of employers on the one hand and trade unions on the other which were the central issue of the debate. There is no doubt about what

  1373
  has been the central issue in the minds and in the speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think that in their judgment of the central issue is where their basic error lies. To them—and this has been clear during this afternoon's debate—the central issue has been the legal status of trade unions and the enforcement of collective agreements.
  The Royal Commission took a very different view, not simply about the desirability of legal enforcement, but about the prominence that it should have in our thinking on this entire subject. They were very clear that to concentrate our efforts and our discussions, and to have out deliberations centred round this as: the basic issue of trade union negotiations and improvements in the industrial relations system would
  "divert attention from the underlying causes to the symptoms."
  By this the Commission means the underlying causes of, or conversely the symptoms of, industrial unrest.
  The Royal Commission has no doubt about what the underlying causes are. It says that "the root of the evil lies in our present method of collective bargaining, and especially in our methods of workshop bargaining, and in the absence of speedy, clear, and effective disputes procedures." But, since both right hon. Gentlemen opposite devoted a great deal of their time to what the Royal Commission regarded as an attack on the symptoms, I want to deal with that, at least in part.
  On the face of it—and I emphasise on the face of it—what the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) are advocating is not very revolutionary. If I might quote from "Fair Deal at Work", that remarkable document recommends that collective agreements should be enforceable except in so far as the parties specifically agree that the whole or part of them should not be legally binding. In his equally remarkable article in the Sunday Telegraph the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) put a rather different gloss on the party's proposals—the difference between enforceability with the propect of contracting out, and enforceability if the parties choose to contract in. But I shall not pursue the differences which, in his mind, are perhaps differences of nuance, but
  1374
  which are differences of considerable substance. They are differences which burk the basic issue facing any organisation or any party which urges the enforceability of collective agreements, and they are differences which misunderstand the attitude of much of British industry to potential enforceability.
  It has been said several times this afternoon—and I repeat it now—that as the law stands there is nothing which prevents a trade union and an individual employer entering into an agreement which can and should be legally enforceable.
  Sir K. Joseph: If that is so, has the law changed in the last two years? Why did the Ministry of Labour state the opposite in its evidence to the Royal Commission?
  Mr. Hattersley: I was going to deal with that point, not least because I was asked about it during the right hon. Gentleman's absence. The Ministry of Labour did not state the opposite. What it said was a sophistication of the position with which I shall now have to weary the House. The abolition of Section 4(4) of the Trade Disputes Act simply allows employers' associations to be in the same position as individual companies in making agreements with trade unions. It neither prohibits nor prevents them, but it does not mean that every agreement made between an employers' association and a trade union would be then—or every agreement made between an individual company and a trade union is now—legally enforceable. They are not debarred by law from legal enforceability, but they are often debarred by their nature from legal enforceability.
  It is judged that on many occasions courts would hold that the agreement was entered into without the specific decision to make it legally enforceable. Therefore in the same way, I am advised, that courts are often found to refuse to adjudicate in a dispute between members of a family, because for instance, they regard the dispute as inappropriate for legal enforcement, they would refuse to adjudicate in these matters on that basis. That adjudication would be possible only if both parties had stipulated that they intended the agreement to have the force of law.

  1375
  By altering or removing Section 4(4) of the Trade Disputes Act the right hon. Gentleman's party would do no more than give employers' associations the same opportunities to enter into enforceable agreements that now exist with individual companies. It would mean, first, that there would have to be specific agreement by both parties, or the courts would not believe it to be appropriate for them to deal with the matter. It might also mean that rather different agreements would have to be entered into from those which operate in industry at this moment.
  Agreements would have to be a good deal more precise. They would have to define exactly who the parties were with a great deal more precision. They would have to define what the agreement consisted of much more clearly. But if the contract or agreement were to be stipulated by the parties as one which both wished to see made legally enforceable and if, by its character and nature, it could be interpreted by the courts, enforceability is possible now between individual companies and unions and, with the abolition of section 4(4), it would be possible between employer's associations and trade unions.
  Mr. Horner: Does not my hon. Friend agree that one of the most unsavoury features of such an agreement is that it would probably have to be drawn up in consultation with lawyers?
  Mr. Hattersley: I was going to say that one of the problems to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer was making sure not only that both parties intended the agreement to be legally enforceable but that when it was drawn up the agreement would be technically enforceable by the courts. The right hon. Gentleman was less than frank in dealing with the confusion that might arise on the technical problems alone, and in coming to conclusions about whether or not management and unions would, in the first place, choose to make their agreements enforceable and, secondly, whether managements would enforce those agreements once the element of enforceability had been included.
  All our experience, which stems from those few legal sanctions that employers can now use against trade unionists who
  1376
  strike suddenly and in breach of their contract of employment, suggests that employers would be most reluctant to take the civil remedies that the right hon. Gentleman referred to, even if the ideal situation, according to him, was brought into operation.
  The Royal Commission concludes "that no proposal to impose legal sanctions is practical if it assumes that an employer plays an active part in its enforcement." If, subject to contracting out, both parties agree that a contract shall be legally enforceable for three years, and two years after the contract begins the union decides that it wishes to make a major breach in the contract, will the right hon. Gentleman be content if the employer says, "We accept the breach. It is a concession that we make in the interests of future good industrial relations", or do they pursue the logic of their argument and say that the Government should intervene and be given power to make sure that although the employer is reluctant to employ sanctions, the Government should not be?
  Mr. R. Carr: No.
  Sir K. Joseph: No.
  Mr. Hattersley: I am relieved to hear both right hon. Gentlemen say "No", because I have objections to that in principle. But the right hon. Gentlemen must accept the logic of the evidence presented to the Royal Commission and much of the experience of my Ministry, that it is inconceivable that individual employers will operate legal sanctions although they have arranged between themselves and the unions an enforceable agreement.
  Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is persisting in a fallacy in insisting that the only effect of the law depends on whether or not a case is taken to court. My experience of life is that people behave differently—more responsibly and more carefully—if they know that they are entering into a binding agreement. When other forms of contract are broken the parties do not always go to court, but that does not invalidate the law.
  Mr. Hattersley: Many hon. Members on this side of the House voted for the Race Relations Bill in exactly that spirit —in the belief that the law would itself give some force to the proposals. The

  1377
  difficulty is that on this occasion the employer would have to take the initiative, and all the evidence suggests not only that he would not take the initiative but that the party against whom he would not take the initiative would know that to be so.
  There are many other objections in practice to the position which the right hon. Gentleman advocated. One of them appears in the minutes of evidence of the Royal Commission for 15th February, 1966. Mr. George Woodcock was cross-examining a number of employers' representatives about this very point. He took them step by step through what would be involved in such a system and through the process of decision about what was the appropriate trade union. He took them through the situation in which that trade union and the employers came to an enforceable agreement. He took them through the situation in which the agreement was broken and, after the agreement was broken, the offending strikers were prosecuted and then deductions were made from their pay at source.
  Then Mr. Woodcock asked the employer's representative, "What would you do if the people struck against deductions from pay?", and the employer's representative gave a very straight answer: "Then we are in trouble." Anyone who has read that evidence must regard it is a very potent argument against the principles which the right hon. Gentleman lays down.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: Where has the hon. Gentleman seen the word "prosecution"? There is nothing in the proposition put forward from this side of the House envisaging criminal proceedings. It is entirely a civil remedy.
  Mr. Hattersley: I understood that.
  Mr. Orme: Would my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's proposal, which would, in effect, make national agreements liable to legal enforcement, will be used by the employers as a means of refusing to make an agreement unless the unions are prepared to accept it as legally binding and enforceable? That is; the subtle approach which the employers would make. I hope that my hon. Friend takes note of that point.
  Mr. Hattersley: I want to do the right hon. Gentleman justice. I understand
  1378
  that he would say that the continuity of the agreement which the unions had for sale—and by selling it this would be an added bargaining counter—had all the virtues that that implies and all the disadvantages which my hon. Friend implies. One must make a judgment between the advantages and the disadvantages.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) said that he was regretful that the Royal Commission had turned its face finally and fully against what the Commission described and what he described as the "automatic" sanctions which, in a sense, avoid some of the difficulties of initiative to which I have referred. There are two problems about automatic sanctions—problems which my right hon. Friend will want to take into account when she considers her final conclusion. The first is that, unfortunately, automatic sanctions are not automatic. Someone must decide how the procedure works. Someone must report an unofficial strike which leads to a reduction in redundancy pay or the abandonment of rights under the Contract of Employment Act. Therefore, all the problems of employer initiative remain.
  The other disadvantage is that, by their nature, automatic sanctions—say, removing the right to redundancy pay or rights under the Contract of Employment Act—are the most savage sanctions on a man who has worked for a number of years in one industry and has a long record of continuous employment, who is least likely to be involved in an unofficial strike. But they apply hardly at all to the man who moves from industry to industry and who has no continuity of employment and, therefore, is more likely to be involved in the strike.
  But in all these matters which envisage legal sanctions and the enforceability of agreements, the technicalities and the problems of organisation and of administering the system must loom very large in my right hon. Friend's mind when she reaches her final conclusion. My hon. Friends believe that there are matters of principle involved. Those must concern my right hon. Friend, too. It would be wrong of me, in talking about her ultimate decision on points of principle, not to remind the House of the substantial technical disadvantages which stand in the way of operating the sort of system

  1379
  which the right hon. Gentleman advocates. It just will not do to draw rather bogus distinctions between what happens in Britain and what happens in other countries with very different industrial experience, very different organisation and traditions and very different industrial practices. What really needs to be done is, as the Royal Commission says, to attack the cause rather than the symptoms of the problem, and that is certainly the aspect to which my right hon. Friend will turn her mind.
  We have been reminded many times today that one of the troubles—perhaps not the basic trouble, but one of the troubles—to which any responsible Government must turn its mind is the problem of unofficial strikes. Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) that I in no way minimise the problems arising from unofficial strikes. I know that in terms of days lost our record is good but that in terms of individual disputes our record by international comparison is not good.
  Simply in my capacity as Member of Parliament for one of the Birmingham divisions, and so representing men almost exclusively employed in work connected with the motor industry, I must point out that in the motor industry 100,000 days were lost in 1967 in factories other than those in which the stoppage occurred as a result of both official and unofficial strikes. I would be denying my responsibility to my constituents if I pretended that this was not an important problem.
  I also know that it is a problem the solution of which is demanded by the country, and that the cry to do something about unofficial strikes and unofficial strikers is popular. Because of that, I fear that there is a temptation to take a popular and militant stand rather than necessarily solving the problem. What I undertake that this Government will do as they consider the problem of unofficial strikes is to try to solve the underlying endemic difficulties rather than make a play for what I frankly and gladly admit is the popularity that would be given to any Government that made bellicose noises about unofficial strikes.
  Looking at the problem of unofficial strikes, the Royal Commission say the
  1380
  final and definitive word on enforceability:
  "The first and most important step to be taken in order to get rid of the unconstitutional strikes is the reform of our collective bargaining system. This is our central recommendation. We cannot recommend anything that may jeopardise its success."
  Looking at the motor industry in detail in terms of unofficial strikes, the Royal Commission makes four fundamentally important points. The first is that these strikes are not the result of the character of the British people:
  "… Shop stewards in the motor industry, like shop stewards elsewhere, are in general hard-working and responsible people …"
  But, says the Commission, it may be the character of British institutions. It says:
  "The engineering industry's disputes procedure must bear a large share …"
  of the blame for the difficulties. This leads, I think, automatically to the natural remedy for failure to communicate problems of wage structures rather than wage levels, which is to remove problems in the procedure.
  In paragraph 454, the Report states:
  "By far the most important part in remedying the problem of unofficial strikes and other forms of unofficial action will however be played by reforming the institutions of whose defects they are a symptom."
  The House will know very well that the Government have a remarkable record in attempting to reform the institutions in what have come to be called the problem industries. The reorganisation of the docks has as an important subsidiary part of its intention to give the opportunity to men to work in continuity close to official union leaders, and in peace and harmony that has not previously characterised the industry.
  Again, the National Joint Industrial Council for the Motor Industry is intended to deal with the basic problems mentioned in that recommendation and the Government's intentions in the shipping and printing industries are meant to do exactly the job which the Royal Commission believes is the most necessary for improvement in industrial relations. That is essentially a remedy to and for the institutional structural problems which have caused far more industrial disputes than the inadequacies of the legal framework.

  1381
  One of the institutions, and one part of the legal framework, is Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and perhaps not enough has been said today about rival attitudes towards that Act. The Royal Commission says that the immunity provided by that Act should be available only to the leaders of those unions which will become registered under these provisions. That means that the immunity would not be available to leaders of unofficial strikes. Both the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) and my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) drew attention to that, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham drawing our attention to his objection to the suggestion and urging us not to implement that part of the Report. That part of the Report by no means coincides with the recommendations of "Fair Deal at Work", which goes a great deal further in terms of removal of immunity under the Trade Disputes Act. According to "Fair Deal at Work", strikes in sympathy, in an inter-union dispute or to force a closed shop, should be removed from the exemption.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) urged that on the House this afternoon. I wonder if in simple pragmatic terms he believes, and if "Fair Deal at Work" believes, that the removal of those exemptions would improve the chance of industrial peace. I promise the House that my right hon. Friend, when she looks at the recommendations, will look at them as great issues of principle, the right of unions to use all their power in the aid of their membership in one sector. I cannot promise on which side my right hon. Friend will eventually come down, but I insist that on whichever side she comes down she will be influenced by the practical considerations of which side is most likely to lead to industrial peace. I cannot believe that the removal of the exemptions in the terms advocated by the document put forward by hon. Members opposite could do more than create disharmony.
  What will lead to industrial peace are the sort of collective bargaining arrangements which the Report recommends to meet present needs and which comes face to face with modern realities—the words used by my hon. Friend the Mem-
  1382
  ber for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner). This should have been understood by the hon. Member for Cathcart who expressed some regret that the Report had come down so unequivocally on the side of plant bargaining. It is not the Report which has come down on the side of plant bargaining but industry, history and the economy which has increasingly come down on the side of plant bargaining.
  The conclusion of the Report as to the structure of the industrial relations system stems from how things have developed at the moment. More and more of the things which affect a man's pay packet and what he takes home at the end of the week or the month are decided at plant level. I think it is sensible, practical and reasonable that this should be organised in a coherent framework of industrial relations practice.
  The dichotomy between national and factory agreements has long been accepted by the Department of Employment and Productivity and by its predecessor, the Ministry of Labour. Many of the things which my right hon. Friend has urged on industry by way of productivity agreements, improvement of procedures and negotiating rational bargains right across the board are bargains which are dependent on local rather than national agreement. Certainly we intend to continue the programme of encouragement of productivity agreements and we shall want to encourage all those processes which are likely to make the local bargain more understandable and systematic.
  Many other things in the Report are policies and attitudes already held by my Department. As the House has been told, we have already mounted an inquiry into the necessity for statutory proceedings over dismissals. We have urged, as has the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., the acceptance of adult trainees. There is much that the House will wish to commend in the Report and to adopt and which the Government wish to include in the White Paper. Many of the things the Report advocates are for the Government to do but a great deal can be successful if the response does not come from Whitehall but from industry.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) made the point

  1383
  properly and cogently that improvements which the Report advocates are improvements about efficiency and, therefore, about people's standards of living. I promise that the Government will respond to the Report. Our hope and belief is that industry will respond as well.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers Associations 1965–1968 (Command Paper No. 3623).

  GUYANA (GIFT OF TABLE AND CHAIRS)
  10.0 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a gift of a Clerk's Table and Chairs and a Chair for the Serjeant at Arms to the Guyana National Assembly and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
  This gift to Guyana follows the now established tradition of the House, which we are glad to honour, of sending a gift to the legislature of a Commonwealth country to mark that country's attainment of independence within the Commonwealth. As Leader of the House, I speak tonight with great affection for Guyana, because I was in that country last year as Minister of Agriculture and met Guyana's distinguished Prime Minister, his Ministers and many people there. I had an opportunity of seeing the country. I have great admiration for what is being done there and I have much personal affection for its people, many of whom I met when I had the honour of being a guest in their country.
  The House may recall that on 26th May, 1966, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in reply to a Question, informed the House that Her Majesty's Government would propose that the House should offer an independence gift to the Guyana National Assembly. The Parliamentary authorities in Guyana, whose wishes were naturally consulted, welcomed these proposals, and Parliamentary furniture consisting of a Clerk's table, three Clerk's chairs, and a chair for
  1384
  the Serjeant at Arms have been designed and manufactured. For the convenience of hon. Members, it is hoped that the furniture will be on display in the House between 22nd and 26th July.
  If the House accepts the Motion, as I feel sure it will, arrangements will be made for a small delegation from the House to present the gift. We understand that the presentation could conveniently be made during the third week in October. I therefore commend the Motion to the House in the expectation that it will be accepted as an expression of our friendship and goodwill towards the National Assembly of Guyana.
  Question put and agreed to.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  ILLEGITIMACY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]
  10.3 p.m.
  Miss Joan Lestor: I welcome this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the problem of illegitimacy and the relationship of the illegitimate child and the law.
  This is Human Rights Year and it is worthy of note that Article 25 (2) of the Declaration of Human Rights specifically mentions this question and states:
  "That this Article provides that, within the Declaration, motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance and that all children, born in and out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protections."
  It is not my intention tonight, because of the shortness of time, to go in great detail into the social difficulties facing the woman who has a child out of wedlock. However, I would not want it to be thought, because I am not mentioning this subject at length, that these are not matters that we should be considering. It is, nevertheless, true that in Britain today we do not. in the application of most of our welfare and social services, indulge in any discrimination. Discrimination and difficulties occur in the use which people make of the services at their disposal, but in political and educational terms, there is no discrimination against those who are born out of wedlock. But many in this position feel that they are not socially

  1385
  acceptable. Although society does not generally act with that attitude, the use of the word "illegitimate" and particularly the use of the word "bastard", which is used as a term of abuse, have hurtful connotations to such people.
  But although there may be no discrimination in social, political or educational terms towards the natural child, the legal position of such a child is far more serious and he suffers from grave inequality before the law, especially the law of inheritance and intestacy.
  Last September, it was stated in the Modern Law Review that the most outstanding examples of legal discrimination against innocent people in our islands were to be found in examples affecting children born out of wedlock. Human rights are not related to numbers, but we are here discussing a fairly sizeable group of people, roughly 7 per cent. of all live births. For example, in 1965, out of a total of 997,000 births in the United Kingdom, 73,000 were out of wedlock. The important legal consideration is that 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of these children were born to stable unions. There must be a distinction between those born to stable unions and those born to unstable unions or casual relationships.
  One has to look to history to discover why we have different laws and different regulations for inheritance.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I assure the hon. Lady that I am in utter sympathy with the case she is pleading, but on the Adjournment she may not advocate a change in the law. She may ask for a change in regulations and she may ask for an inquiry into the problems of illegitimate children, but she may not ask for a change in the law.
  Miss Lestor: I will bear that in mind, Mr. Speaker. History shows why children born out of wedlock are treated differently for inheritance purposes from children born in wedlock, but in 1968, when we have different views about the actions of others and about who should suffer and who should not suffer because of the actions of others, we ought to be able to free ourselves from prejudice and consider the situation more objectively and less emotionally.
  In 1966, the Committee on the Law of Succession reported about illegitimate
  1386
  persons. The Report was welcomed by many people, including the Law Reform Society, and was warmly welcomed by the Government spokesman in another place. Very little investigation has followed and there has been very little inquiry into the recommendations of that Report which urged that the Government should try to establish whether the present law was applicable to present-day society, or whether a change was possible.
  It came quite clearly from the Report that a natural child is a second-class citizen as regards inheritance. For example, if the father of such a child dies without making a will the child cannot claim and receives nothing, even if he was living with and supported by his father, that is, if he was one of the children to whom I referred who are the result of a long-standing and stable relationship. We learned from the Report that if an unmarried mother dies without leaving a will her illegitimate child can inherit only if she has no legitimate child. Under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938, there is more inequality. Legitimate dependent children can have provision made for them by a court if the parents have willed their money away from them by some means judged to be either not in their interests or to have been done perhaps under strain, stress or emotional difficulty. The children can have the will changed in their favour, but this does not apply to the child born out of wedlock.
  Bearing in mind the reception given to the recommendations in the Report, and that from time to time suggestions have been made that an inquiry should be held by the Government into the whole question of legitimacy and illegitimacy laws, I ask my hon. Friend to comment on what is the likely future situation. It would not be very difficult to correct the situation now. In 1959 the then hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) introduced certain reforms. The thought was expressed then that although they were a step in the right direction they by no means went far enough to regularise the situation I have described.
  Another aspect which I ask my hon. Friend to consider is the whole question of the claim of unmarried mothers against the father of their child, and what I shall

  1387
  say now applies also to the many other maintenance and affiliation orders. The unmarried mother, like others, often faces great difficulty in obtaining the amount due to her through the courts or allotted to her by the father. It is about time we dealt with such orders in a far more definite and more workable way through the same channels as, or something similar to, the family allowance method of payment. If it were done in this way it would be possible to recover the money through the Income Tax or National Insurance of the father against whom the order has been made.
  I am very worried and concerned about the number of women in this position who have a court order awarded to them in respect of their child and very often cannot obtain the maintenance to which they are entitled. Where voluntary arrangements are made between parents they should be registered in the court so that they can be enforced through it and be recoverable by the mother where the father defaults although he has entered into a voluntary agreement.
  Another point in connection with maintenance and financial orders, and another reason why we should look much more closely at the way mothers of such children are so often affected is that although social and welfare services are available to all mothers equally, whether or not they are married, the mother trying to bring up a child without a father faces greater financial and social difficulties because she starts at a tremendous disadvantage.
  The mothers of a large number of children in the care of the local authority in some areas are trying to bring them up alone. Often the children are not in the care of the local authority because they were born out of wedlock but because the social circumstances of the mother, her home conditions and the difficulties of getting them looked after have put her in a difficult situation. Therefore, we should be saving, in terms not only of social suffering and emotional deprivation, both of mother and child, but of the financial commitments on local authorities if we could find ways of ensuring that mothers entitled to money from the father received it in a surer way. We must seek to offset, both financially and in other ways, the real difficulties
  1388
  which many mothers face as a result of social and financial problems.
  Another aspect of this subject about which I had a Question down today and to which I received a reply from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health concerns birth certificates. In this country, we have a system whereby one can have a short or long birth certificate. The idea was that we would remove the social stigma of illegitimacy by having a shortened version of the birth certificate which was available to all, whether a child was born in or out of wedlock. But the value of the shortened birth certificates lies in its increased use by all sections of society. Otherwise, one could easily argue that people with shortened birth certificates were born out of wedlock or had been adopted.
  Although there is evidence from the figures which I have received that more people are using the shortened birth certificate, there is also evidence to suggest that the vast majority of people still go in for the long birth certificate unless they have particular reason for asking for the shortened version. In Scotland, a free copy of the shortened birth certificate is issued automatically and one pays for the long birth certificate if one wishes to have it. Perhaps we can encourage more people to take the short version. I should have liked us to consider whether we could do away with the long birth certificate altogether so that everyone had the same birth certificate and particulars of father, and so on, were entered perhaps in a register kept at the registrar's department. Perhaps we can use one of the ways which I have mentioned to encourage people to use the same type of certificates and thus remove this stigma. Many people born out of wedlock feel that the shortened birth certificate identifies them. Whether it does or not is another matter.
  We should try to move towards a situation in which we cease to use the words "illegitimate" and "bastard" about children born out of wedlock. They are terms, particularly "bastard", which have abusive connotations. When used in legal documents and in legal jargon, they only encourage the stigma which many people feel they have.
  Can my hon. Friend give us any hope that the rights of fathers in respect of children born out of wedlock will be

  1389
  reviewed? The father of a child to whose mother he is not married does not have adoption rights, although he may be consulted about the matter. The more rights fathers have in respect of children for whom they are physically responsible, the more likely we are to encourage them to accept responsibility for them, whether the relationship is stable or not.
  Perhaps the suggestions which I have made could be considered in relation to the Russell Report and to what we know about the difficulties encountered by children born out of wedlock, and particularly by their mothers. It seems to me that changes of this sort could be considered, and are within our ken, within the next Session or so.
  Having seen the working of the situation and that there is discrimination against these children, it seems to me that if we do not take the necessary action to try to reinstate them in equality—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am more sympathetic than the hon. Lady can imagine to the points that she is trying to put, but she canot ask for new laws on the Adjournment. She can ask for inquiry. That is her safe line.
  Miss Lestor: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I meant to ask whether it would not be possible, therefore, to have an inquiry based on the recommendations of the Russell Report and on the knowledge which we now have of the difficulties encountered in respect of the existing law.
  10.21 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): Illegitimacy is not a subject which is often discussed in the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) deserves our gratitude for bringing about this brief opportunity tonight to consider some of the problems which affect, as she has stated, a not inconsiderable proportion of the population of Britain.
  I speak under two constraints. The first is one of time. I am sure that the House will allow me to illustrate this by mentioning that the study prepared by the United Nations on discrimination against person born out of wedlock, to which my hon. Friend has referred, runs to over 200 packed pages and even then
  1390
  it attempts to cover fully only the legal aspects of the problem.
  The second constraint, as you have suggested, Mr. Speaker, flows from the fact that the rules of order prevent me from discussing whether it would, or would not, be desirable to make changes relating to inheritance by the illegitimate, or to birth certificates, or to other aspects of the legal status and rights of illegitimate persons. Such changes would inevitably involve legislation, and we may not discuss on the Adjournment whether new legislation is needed, or, indeed, planned.
  For these reasons I propose briefly first to make some general observations about the special problems experienced by the illegitimate, whether or not these problems may be regarded as the result of discrimination. It is imperative to understand the nature of these problems, because otherwise we may run the risk of proposing remedies which are inappropriate or impracticable.
  The United Nations report, although concerned primarily with questions of legal status, identified at least four distinct kinds of discrimination affecting an illegitimate person. The first, and the most fundamental—since it underlies all the others—is what one might describe as factual discrimination, and is not discrimination in the usual sense at all. As the United Nations rapporteur put it:
  "Some differences exist, will have to remain, and may not be improved upon because of the fundamental difference of the situations of the two categories of persons stemming from the fact that their parents were married in the one case and were not in the other."
  Or, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor put it when this subject was debated last year in another place:
  "… unless one abandons altogether the institution of marriage and the legitimate family, one cannot get away from the fact that some children are born to mothers who are not married to the fathers and who may never marry them".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 22nd February, 1967; Vol. 280. c. 772.]
  However far we may attempt to go in the law, or in the administration of our social services, towards removing or mitigating the consequences of this fact, we cannot do so entirely.
  The second type of discrimination is social. So long as illegitimacy is regarded by some as carrying a stigma, the

  1391
  illegitimate will suffer for this in ways not experienced by those born in wedlock. The law has a part to play in influencing public attitudes on such questions, but this is also very much a matter of social education, to bring about the realisation that all people deserve respect as human beings, irrespective of the accident of birth.
  The third kind of discrimination is that relating to public rights and welfare services. The United Nations study showed that such discrimination is now very rare. As my hon. Friend has stated, in the United Kingdom social services are made available on the basis of need and illegitimacy is in itself irrelevant. Most of the problems faced by illegitimate children and their mothers are those faced by all fatherless families whether the lack of a father is due to death, desertion, divorce or any other cause. This applies in the Health Service, in the local authority services concerned with welfare, children and so on, and in the field of social security. The Supplementary Benefits Commission also gives special help to unmarried mothers, for instance in obtaining affiliation orders.
  Fourthly, there is discrimination in the law. We need to tread carefully here, for legal distinctions which do no more than reflect the fact that some parents are married to each other, and others are not, are not in themselves discriminatory. The removal from the law of such distinctions does nothing to alter the facts, and does not necessarily reduce legal discrimination though it may influence public attitudes.
  In this country during the past 40 years or so we have made substantial progress towards eliminating legal provisions which can be regarded as discriminating against the illegitimate. The year 1926 saw the introduction into our law of the concepts of legitimation by the subsequent marriage of the parents, and of legal adoption, and succeeding years have seen the extension of legitimation, the introduction of the short birth certificate, the right of the father of an illegitimate child to apply for custody —this is one of the rights vested in fathers—and other improvements in the law of succession, custody, maintenance and affiliation, culminating in the Maintenance Orders Act, 1968, a Private Bill
  1392
  introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), which removed the previous statutory financial limitation on the amount of an affiliation order. It is now true to say that the one remaining legal disability of real substance affecting the illegitimate relates to succession on intestacy.
  The House will be aware that the Report of the Russell Committee, published in July, 1966, recommended the elimination of practically all the disadvantages currently suffered by the illegitimate in respect of rights of inheritance on the intestacy of their parents and rights to claim from the estate of a deceased person under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938. In February last year the Government announced their intention to accept this Report in general, but I am precluded tonight from adding to that statement. My hon. Friend should not assume of necessity that little or nothing has been done or that little or nothing will be done in future in this connection.
  My hon. Friend referred to the question of short birth certificates. This afternoon she asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health a Question on this subject, and of course I cannot add to the Answer which he gave, particularly since it would involve discussion of possible future legislation. I undertake, however, to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the matters to which my hon. Friend has alluded in this connection, particularly to the habit of the traditionally thrifty Scots to issue a free short form of certificate in such cases.
  It is not wholly correct to say that the vast majority of certificates are in the long form of birth certificate. In 1967, 700,000 of these were in the short form and 900,000 in the long form. There is, therefore, no question of the short form of certificate being in any way synonymous with illegitimacy.
  Finally, I will say a few words on the study of discrimination against persons born out of wedlock, prepared by a special rapporteur under the auspices of the United Nations Sub-Commission, on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, and published last year. This document is essentially a study of the position of illegitimate persons as it now is under the laws of

  1393
  member nations. It contains expressions of view, which are those of the author alone. Attached to it is an annex suggesting certain general principles to preserve equality and non-discrimination in this field; these principles have been put forward for consideration by the Sub-Commission, which is an independent body of experts, and the whole report is now before the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations. The Commission has not so far been able to give detailed consideration to the report, which is one of a great number of reports which it hopes to consider at an appropriate time.
  Meanwhile it can be said that the report shows very clearly that the problem of eliminating or alleviating legal provisions which can be regarded as dis-
  1394
  criminating against the illegitimate person is dealt with in a variety of different ways in different countries, and that these differences are often related to differences in the social, religious and legal background. Provisions which are suitable in one culture or legal system may not be equally appropriate in another. While one would not wish to claim that no more progress is possible in England and Wales, we have certainly made much progress in this field over the last forty years or more. The one remaining area where illegitimacy involves important legal disabilities is inheritance and, as I have already mentioned, the Government accept the need to remove these disabilities.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Bristol (Port Health Service)
  Bristol (Port Health Service)
  Family Planning Services
  Family Planning Services
  Prescription Charges (Publicity)
  Prescription Charges (Publicity)
  Methedrine Addiction
  Methedrine Addiction
  Proprietary and Non-Proprietary Preparations (Cost)
  Proprietary and Non-Proprietary Preparations (Cost)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Cooked Food (Microwave Equipment)
  Cooked Food (Microwave Equipment)
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  Family Planning Services, Richmond
  Family Planning Services, Richmond
  KH3 Pills (Dunlop Committee)
  KH3 Pills (Dunlop Committee)
  Birth Certificate (Shortened Version)
  Birth Certificate (Shortened Version)
  Pharmaceutical Industry (Sainsbury Report)
  Pharmaceutical Industry (Sainsbury Report)
  Fluoridation, Newcastle and Gateshead
  Fluoridation, Newcastle and Gateshead
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Health Centres, Wales
  Health Centres, Wales
  Limitation of Families (Policy)
  Limitation of Families (Policy)
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Doctors (Return from U.S.A.)
  Doctors (Return from U.S.A.)
HOSPITALS
  Nurses' Pay
  Nurses' Pay
  Proposed Manor Hospital, Oxford (Boilerhouse Fuel)
  Proposed Manor Hospital, Oxford (Boilerhouse Fuel)
  Bromley Group
  Bromley Group
  Guy's Hospital (Resignations)
  Guy's Hospital (Resignations)
  North-East Essex (Geriatric Services)
  North-East Essex (Geriatric Services)
  Mentally Subnormal, Newcastle (Beds)
  Mentally Subnormal, Newcastle (Beds)
  Construction, Repairs and Maintenance (Direct Labour)
  Construction, Repairs and Maintenance (Direct Labour)
  Hospital Pharmacists
  Hospital Pharmacists
  Admission to Hospital (Application)
  Admission to Hospital (Application)
  Diana Moore (Hospital Accommodation)
  Diana Moore (Hospital Accommodation)
  Caerphilly and District Hospital (Maternity Unit)
  Caerphilly and District Hospital (Maternity Unit)
  Hospital Management Committees (Trade Union Nominated Members)
  Hospital Management Committees (Trade Union Nominated Members)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Betterment Levy
  Betterment Levy
  Central Lancashire New Town Proposal
  Central Lancashire New Town Proposal
  Caravan Sites (Planning Applications and Appeals)
  Caravan Sites (Planning Applications and Appeals)
  Land Commission (Staff)
  Land Commission (Staff)
HOUSING
  Council House Rents, Wolverhampton
  Council House Rents, Wolverhampton
  Bathroom Facilities
  Bathroom Facilities
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  War Loan
  War Loan
  Bedham Manor Land (Estate Duty)
  Bedham Manor Land (Estate Duty)
  Jewellery Trade (Purchase Tax)
  Jewellery Trade (Purchase Tax)
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Sterling Balances
  Sterling Balances
  Trial of the Pyx
  Trial of the Pyx
  Liquidation Accounts (Interest)
  Liquidation Accounts (Interest)
  Fund Surplus Loans (Government Interest)
  Fund Surplus Loans (Government Interest)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Gerald Norton, V.C.
  Mr. Gerald Norton, V.C.
  Rhodesian Passports
  Rhodesian Passports
  Rhodesia Political Department
  Rhodesia Political Department
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Theatre Bars (Licensing)
  Theatre Bars (Licensing)
  Experiments on Animals (Littlewood Report)
  Experiments on Animals (Littlewood Report)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Research and Development Establishments (Scientists)
  Research and Development Establishments (Scientists)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  London Docks (Overtime Ban)
  London Docks (Overtime Ban)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Grammar and Secondary School Education, Harrow (Cost)
  Grammar and Secondary School Education, Harrow (Cost)
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
AVIATION
  Aeroplanes and Helicopters (Private Pilot Licences)
  Aeroplanes and Helicopters (Private Pilot Licences)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  North Sea Gas
  North Sea Gas
POST OFFICE
  Newspaper Advertisement
  Newspaper Advertisement
SCOTLAND
  Rodger Committee (Recommendations)
  Rodger Committee (Recommendations)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Bridge Street—Richmond Terrace Site (Redevelopment)
  Bridge Street—Richmond Terrace Site (Redevelopment)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Arms Exports
  Arms Exports
  Promotion of Employment, Wales (Government Expenditure)
  Promotion of Employment, Wales (Government Expenditure)
  Industrial Development Certificates, Wales
  Industrial Development Certificates, Wales
  Pharmaceutical Preparations (Wholesale Price Index)
  Pharmaceutical Preparations (Wholesale Price Index)
  Consumer Council (Annual Report)
  Consumer Council (Annual Report)
ROADS
  Traffic Signs (T Junctions)
  Traffic Signs (T Junctions)
WALES
  Rate Relief (Caerphilly)
  Rate Relief (Caerphilly)
  House Building
  House Building

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

NEW FOREST PONIES
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm the statement made by Mr. David Burgess, a veterinary surgeon (quoted in the Guardian newspaper) that owing to insufficient food in the New Forest many ponies face starvation; and, if that is so, whether they will carry out his recommendation and ensure that for three months each year the Forest is cleared of ponies.]
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, my information is that this report is in some respects exaggerated. I am told by the New Forest Verderers that the ponies were in unusually poor condition in the spring of this year—following an exceptionally wet winter—but that with few exceptions they are now in generally good condition. It is the regular practice of the Verderers to have an inspection of the animals made in the autumn and to request the removal from the Forest of any which seem unlikely to come through the winter in reasonable condition. The Verderers have given notice to the Commoners' and Pony Breeders Associations that a particularly thorough inspection will be made this year.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his most helpful reply. May I ask him whether the Verderers will take particular care to see that the virus diseases which occur in the Forest among ponies that are under-nourished are not allowed to spread? Can he say whether
178
it is the fact that if these diseases occur they begin to spread with great rapidity?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, this is one of the reasons for having this special examination of all the animals later this year. I agree with what the noble Lord has said.
LORD AMULREE: I thank the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, would the Minister agree with the New Forest Society that there will now be a further profit in the sale of scrub ponies for meat?
LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, that really is another Question. I personally have no knowledge of this; but I know that the noble Marquess is greatly experienced in these matters.

MOTORWAYS CRASH BARRIERS AND SAFETY FENCES
2.38 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the tests on crash barriers and double steel rail safety fences being carried out on an eighteen-mile length of the M1 have now yielded enough information for further barriers to be erected on all motorways.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, we took full account of these experiments in reaching our conclusion that it would not be an economical use of our limited resources to install central crash barriers along the whole length of all motorways. But we shall install further lengths wherever particular road conditions or traffic volumes make this desirable. The reasons for this decision are set out in full in the sixth Special Report from the Estimates Committee for 1967–68.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him whether the steel rail fencing would be cheaper to install than actual crash barriers?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord now because I am not informed on that matter, but I will write to him about it.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is it intended to do any planting on the central reservations where crash barriers are not going to be fixed, so that at least there will be the benefit of preventing headlight dazzle?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me I will write to him on that point, too.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether the central crash barriers will incorporate an anti-dazzle screen as well?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would care to await my answer to the next Question which deals with this point.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, would the Government bear in mind that tough shrubbery as an alternative to a steel barrier has a cushioning effect on a vehicle that is out of control, and does not have the effect, which a rigid steel barrier has, of causing such a vehicle to bounce back into the highway?
LORD WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I will note that point.

MOTOR CAR HEADLAMP DAZZLE
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to lessen the danger caused to motorists and other road users by dazzle from the headlamps of motor cars.]
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport hopes to make an announcement about this before the Recess. Motorists themselves can help by getting the aim of their headlamps checked and by dipping their headlamps when meeting or overtaking another vehicle.
LORD SEGAL: Yes, my Lords. While thanking my noble friend for that reply, so far as it goes, can he explain why, after seventy years of motoring progress in this country, no efficient means have yet been evolved for preventing a motorist from blinding other motorists with his headlights or preventing other motorists from blinding him with theirs?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is unfortunate that we have not been able to find the answer to this problem. Of course, the Road Research Laboratory has conducted extensive experiments, in particular experiments with anti-dazzle screens on the M.1. The peculiar thing is that these screens did not show any significant saving in accidents; in fact, the accident rate was higher when the anti-dazzle screens were used than where they were not installed. We believe that we must spend the money available for road safety on measures which we know will give us a return in terms of lives saved and accidents prevented.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if a motorist adheres carefully to the Highway Code he is perpetually occupied in dipping and beaming his headlights instead of concentrating all his attention on the road?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am afraid that that is one of the facts of driving.

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL
2.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short Bill to amend the law about Restrictive Trade Practices. It has two main purposes—on the one hand to make the operation of the legislation more flexible in the light of present day needs; and on the other hand to prevent evasion of the existing legislation and to strengthen the hands of those whose duty it is to enforce it. The legislation is complex, and it may be helpful to the House if I said something about the framework of the existing legislation against which the changes now proposed have to be set.

181
The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 catches within its scope a broad range of agreements by which commercial enterprises agree on restrictions on the production, selling, acquiring or processing of goods. Agreements relating exclusively to exports are excluded but they are required to be notified to the Board of Trade. Also outside the scope of the Act are all restrictions on the supply of services; for example, restrictions in transport and in professional services. These are, however, to some extent covered by the provisions of the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965.
Agreements covered by the Act are required to be registered with the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements. The parties to an agreement covered by the Act are under a statutory obligation to register it with the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements. The Registrar is required to bring registered agreements before the Restrictive Practices Court for judgment. Restrictions in agreements are deemed against the public interest unless the defending parties satisfy the Court that the circumstances set out in one or more of the seven "gateways" of the Act are satisfied and that, further, it is not unreasonable, having regard to the balance between those circumstances and any detriment occasioned to the public or to persons not party to the agreement. The gateways are mostly concerned with specific benefits, but one is of a more general character—that the removal of the restriction would deny the public as purchasers, consumers or users of goods specific and substantial advantages.
There were in 1956 a large number of restrictive agreements which fell to be judged by the Restrictive Practices Court. In the event, a large number were determined voluntarily or were not defended at a court hearing, so that of the 2,600-odd agreements which have been registered only a comparatively few cases have given rise to a contested hearing. Thus only 315 agreements have been referred to the Court: 34 were defended, 11 successfully. The task of dealing with the backlog of pre-Act Agreements is now largely completed and the Registrar can bring proceedings without delay on any new agreement of substantial importance. The cost to the Government
182
of administering the 1956 Act has been comparatively small in relation to the large number of agreements dealt with.
The overall result of the legislation so far is that less than 1 per cent. of the agreements registered have been found consistent with the public interest. The legislation in its operation has clearly had a substantial impact on the extent to which trade and industry can overtly by collective action seek to restrict competition. The Government believe that the legislation has done a good job. Many hundreds of agreements which were designed to maintain the status quo and impede desirable change have been got rid of. At the same time, the legislation has provided a sieve through which beneficial agreements could pass. Although there is no evidence that agreements in the public interest have been condemned, there are grounds for thinking that the making of new agreements which could be beneficial to the national economy have been at times inhibited. This is one of the main reasons why the Government consider that changes are necessary.
It has been claimed that the 1956 Act inhibits the rationalisation and modernisation of British industry, by, for example, impeding the adoption of cooperative schemes which the Government have, through the Economic Development Councils and as a consequence of recommendations made by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, been urging industry to adopt. Industry has generally taken the attitude that it is not prepared to embark upon any scheme which involves the making of a registrable agreement. The sort of schemes to which I am referring cover such matters as variety reduction in a number of industries, co-ordination of plant building programmes to make the best use of process plant capacity, and the possibility of import saving through arrangements to phase the installation of new plant according to the level of demand The developments in Government policy towards industry which have taken place since 1964 have laid particular emphasis on encouraging co-operative action to improve efficiency, and although there are other factors which bear on industry's decisions whether or not to take the sort of action which the Government has been urging on them, it is clearly undesirable that any avoidable impediment

183
should be placed in the way of the Government's industrial policy. It would of course be possible for the industries affected to register their agreements and be prepared to defend them before the Court, but the delay and expense involved might deter action which is positively welcomed in the national interest.
There is another class of agreement which requires special treatment. In connection with prices and incomes policy, the most effective way of ensuring that an industry holds down its prices may be for the trade association concerned to recommend to its members not to put up prices or not to increase them by more than a figure agreed by the Government. Such a recommendation could, however, give rise to a registrable agreement.
Apart from these changes to make the operation of the 1956 Act more flexible, legislation is also needed to remove certain weaknesses which have become apparent in the operation of the 1956 Act. Agreements to exchange information, for example about prices, are thought to have become widely spread over industry in the place of agreements swept away by the 1956 Act. The definition of a registrable agreement is not wide enough to include all information agreements which can be operated to produce the same effect as restrictive agreements. Nor is there any effective deterrent against failure to register an agreement. At first the expectation that parties would register agreements of their own accord was substantially justified, but recent experience has demonstrated that there is now a wide realisation that no ill befalls parties who do not register their agreements and, once registered, the agreements' chances of survival are slim.
Finally, changes are required in order to enable Her Majesty's Government to honour the obligations which they have accepted in two international agreements they entered into since the passage of the 1956 Act. These are the Stockholm Convention establishing the European Free Trade Association and the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. Both these Treaties provide that certain types of restrictive practices are incompatible with them. In the case of the Stockholm Convention Member States have accepted that they should take account of their
184
obligations when contemplating changes in their legislation. Consequential changes in United Kingdom legislation are therefore required and the Government have decided that they should apply to the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement as well as to the E.F.T.A. Convention.
To meet these criticisms of the operation of the existing legislation and also to deal with a number of other points the Bill makes the detailed provisions which I will now describe. Clause 1 vests in the Board of Trade a discretionary power to exempt from registration under the 1956 Act (and thus from judicial examination by the Restrictive Practices Court) for a specified period agreements of substantial importance to the national economy which promote industrial efficiency or provide for new capacity. The object of this provision is to facilitate co-operative action by industry to carry out schemes of modernisation and rationalisation of the sort which the Government has been urging it to adopt and to which I have already made reference.
The exemptions procedure is subject to a number of safeguards. Thus the Board of Trade must be satisfied, after taking into account the interests of consumers, that on balance the making of the agreement is desirable in the national interest; that its object cannot be achieved in a reasonable time except by means of the agreement; and that the restrictions it contains are no more than is necessary to secure this object. Provision is also made for orders affording exemption and for copies of exempted agreements to be laid before both Houses of Parliament and for copies of exempted agreements to be made available for public inspection save in certain exceptional cases to which I shall refer later. On the other hand, industry must have some assurance that an exempted agreement will he allowed to run for a reasonable period. Although the Board therefore have, in certain limited circumstances, power to withdraw exemption before the period for which it was granted has elapsed, they may not do so in the first year of its operation except which there has been misrepresentation or where information has been withheld.
Clause 2 is designed to assist the administration of the prices and incomes policy. Government Departments have

185
found it necessary in connection with the implementation on a voluntary basis of prices policy to secure the acceptance by industry of restraints upon price increases. In particular, Departments need to secure undertakings under the early warning system that advance notice of proposed price increases will be given to them and that price increases will be deferred or limited in amount. Action on these lines involving trade associations or two or more suppliers may involve industry in the making of an agreement which will be registrable under the principal Act. Industry is, however, unwilling to risk proceedings before the Restrictive Practices Court by making such agreements. The Bill, therefore, empowers those Government Departments (named in subsection (6)) which are involved in the operation of the prices and incomes policy to exempt from registration agreements and terms of agreements made at their request for the purpose of preventing or restricting increases in prices, or to reduce prices. Exemption may be given for a period not exceeding two years and it may be extended or withdrawn for misuse. Exempted agreements are required to be made available for public inspection. The procedure is designed to be as simple as possible, having regard to the need for appropriate safeguards. The power applies to agreements made both before and after the commencement of the Act.
Clause 3 makes supplementary provision about agreements exempted by Clauses 1 and 2. For example, it permits trade association recommendations (which are deemed to be agreements by the existing legislation) to be exempted; makes provision for securing copies of exempted agreements or parts of them to be kept secret where this would be in the public interest, or where legitimate trade secrets are involved on similar lines to the provisions of the 1956 Act in relation to registrable agreements. It also deals with the variation of exempted agreements. The present legislation exempts from registration agreements to make goods in accordance with a British standard. Clause 4 widens this exemption to cover agreements about the acquisition or supply of goods made in accordance with British standards. It also extends the exemption to agreements about standards and arrangements for the
186
provision of information or advice to purchasers, consumers or users approved by the Board of Trade and made by standard-making bodies other than the British Standards Institution. The provision supplements the provision empting agreements of importance to the national economy.
As I have already indicated, agreements to exchange information, for example, by notification of prices, can be used to evade the provisions of the present legislation. Clause 5 therefore empowers the Board of Trade, by Statutory Instrument, subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, to require any class of information agreements to he registered. The Board is given a wide power to classify agreements. The power is an enabling one and it is not the Board's intention to call up for regisstration beneficial classes of agreement—for example, agreements made in support of work on inter-firm comparisons. Provision is included for interested persons to make representations o the Board of Trade before a calling up order is made. I also referred to the difficulties which the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements has experienced in securing compliance with the provisions of the existing legislation. While the present legislation requires particulars of an agreement to be furnished to the Registrar within three months it imposes no penalty upon those who fail to comply. The Bill therefore seeks to impose additional pressures upon parties to agreements to compel them to register them.
Clause 6 prescribes the periods in which particulars of agreements are to be sent to the Registrar for registration. The period is normally three months (as at present) or before the restrictions in the agreement come into force, whichever is the earlier. Clause 7 makes unlawful any agreement which is not registered within the appropriate period laid down by Clause 6. No criminal sanctions are imposed but persons damaged by the operation of an unlawful agreement may seek civil remedies. This follows the precedent of the Resale Prices Act. The Registrar is also empowered to seek an injunction to prohibit parties to an unlawful agreement from operating it; or from carrying out or enforcing any other registrable agreement if they have not duly

187
registered it. Issues of fact decided in actions brought by the Registrar may be used as prima facie evidence in civil proceedings brought by third parties, and decisions of law are to be binding in the same circumstances on the same facts.
Under the principal Act the Registrar has a statutory duty to refer all agreements to the Court, including agreements which have been determined, or whose restrictions have been removed or abandoned. To relieve the Registrar and the Court of much unnecessary work, Clause 9 gives the Registrar discretion whether or not to refer such defunct agreements to the Restrictive Practices Court. The only purpose in instituting proceedings in respect of an agreement which is genuinely defunct is to seek a Court order precluding the making of a fresh agreement to the like effect. Proceedings to inhibit the making of like effect agreements are likely to be rare, but will sometimes be necessary.
The Board of Trade already have power under Section 12 of the 1956 Act to exempt insignificant agreements from examination by the Restrictive Practices Court on the ground that they are of no substantial economic significance. In practice, the definition of such agreements has proved to be too narrow. There are a large number of agreements on the Register which do not warrant legal proceedings but do not seem to satisfy the criteria of Section 12. Moreover, the requirement that the Registrar should remove particulars of insignificant agreements from the Registrar has proved to be a nuisance. One agreement has been removed and then had to be restored because of trivial amendments no less than six times. The Bill therefore repeals the existing Section 12 (except for certain transitional purposes) and substitutes for it a power for the Board of Trade to direct that an agreement should not be referred to the Restrictive Practices Court, if it is not of such significance as to call for investigation by the Court.
Clause 10 provides a new ground for defence which will allow parties to plead before the Restrictive Practices Court that a restriction is not contrary to the public interest because it does not have the effect, directly or indirectly, of restricting competition to a material extent. This ground is intended primarily to provide a
188
defence for information agreements, for which the other so-called "gateways" set out in Section 21 of the principal Act are not likely to be appropriate. It is not, however, confined to information agreements. Parties to agreements may advance it in defence of any restriction.
Article 15 of the Stockholm Convention establishing EFTA, recognises that certain types of restrictive practices and monopoly practices are incompatible with the Convention. Member States of EFTA have accepted that this carries with it an obligation that it should be duly implemented. The Bill therefore provides that the Board of Trade should have a discretionary power to declare void in respect of its restrictions any agreement which the EFTA Council has found by formal resolution to be in breach of Article 15 of the Convention. Restrictions which were successfully defended before the Restrictive Practices Court before the commencement of the new legislation may not, however, be condemned under these new powers. The Board of Trade may exercise their powers in relation to registered agreements and to export agreements, notified to the Board under Section 31 of the 1956 Act.
My Lords, much of this Bill is non-controversial. Indeed, the provisions it contains relating to enforcement cover very much of the same ground as that covered by the previous Administration's 1964 White Paper. Judging by the Bill's reception in another place, noble Lords opposite will, I hope, recognise the need for the provisions of Clause 1, although (to echo the words used in another place) they may regard it as latently controversial and will wish to see how it is operated in practice. I should therefore like to stress that the operation of the provision is subject to appropriate safeguards, and that applications for exemption will be examined most stringently.
Although there have been differences of emphasis, the approach of both Parties to monopolies and restrictive practices has been broadly bipartisan. Indeed, the first Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act, that of 1948, was based on a White Paper of the war-time Coalition. Since then the Party opposite have been responsible for the Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1956, and the Resale Prices Act of 1964. More recently the present Government extended the field of

189
operations of the Monopolies Commission in the Monopolies and Mergers Act of 1965. The underlying objective of both Parties in the evolution of this legislation has remained the, same: to check restrictions of competition and undesirable market power, without at the same time impeding improvements in efficiency or desirable changes in industrial structure. I hope that we shall be able to consider the present Bill in the same spirit. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Brown.)
3.1 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the clarity with which he has introduced this Bill. I am afraid that I shall not be able to emulate his clarity, nor the expertise with which he introduced the Bill—nor indeed the tremendous gallop at which he managed to take us. However, I shall do my best to beat him in the matter of brevity. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for the references which he made to the legislation passed under Conservative Administrations. I personally hold, and hold strongly, the immediate parents of this legislation, the 1956 Restrictive Trade Practices Act, and the 1964 Resale Prices Act, as very important landmarks on the highway of greater economic efficiency. There is, of course, a limit to which any Government can by legislation alone stimulate efficiency. However, legislation can materially help to create the right conditions, the right climate for increased efficiency. In so far as legislation can serve this purpose, I think no Acts on the Statute Book have contributed more than the two I have mentioned, but to echo the bipartisan approach of the noble Lord to this matter, I should also like to recognise for my part the value of the Act of 1948, which was introduced under the post-war Labour Administration.
In so far as the Bill at present before us is designed to strengthen and improve upon the 1956 Act, I say straight away that we on these Benches welcome it. Indeed, I think we would have welcomed the Bill had it been introduced a little earlier. It covers a very important field. Indeed, modest though it may be in appearance, I think this Bill deals with far more important matters than a great deal of the legislation with which the
190
Government are at present encumbering Parliament. Your Lordships may recall that in a White Paper published in March, 1964, the Government of the day made it clear that in their view certain Amendments to the 1956 Act were called for. I hope noble Lords opposite will not think it churlish of me, therefore, when I complain that we have had to wait rather too long for this Bill.
Having said that, I should like to pay a tribute to the work of the Registrar, for the most part silent and pretty well unsung, and to the equally valuable, work of the Restrictive Practices Court. I think a glance at the Registrar's four reports is enough to demonstrate the great volume of business which both he and the court have discharged since the 1956 Bill became law. I have said that we on these Benches in principle welcome the second part of this Bill, that which is designed to improve the enforcement machinery. We shall, of course, reserve our right to suggest Amendments or improvements to it during its passage through your Lordships' House.
Meanwhile, may I put four specific questions to the noble Lord on what appear to be omissions in the present Bill? He will doubtless recall that in the 1964 White Paper attention was drawn to the fact that one way of circumventing the 1956 Act was by means of a series of bilateral agreements which were apparently unconnected. In paragraph 36 of the White Paper, for example, the Government of the day stated that it was their intention to bring in amending legislation designed to catch such agreements. I cannot find mention of that in this Bill, but that may be because I am not an expert in this field. When the noble Lord winds up, perhaps he could deal with that aspect of the matter.
Secondly, the Government of the day, the Conservative Administration, stated that it was their intention to close another bolthole here. They pointed out—and I should like to quote, if I may, from paragraph 37 of the 1964 White Paper —that,
"Experience has shown that it is possible to reproduce the restrictive effect of an agreement which the court has already condemned, by making another agreement which is restrictive in somewhat different terms."
So far as I can make out, agreements to the like effect—as I think they are

191
technically termed—of the type which I have mentioned, are not covered in the Bill before us. I may again be mistaken, and perhaps the noble Lord could enlighten us.
Thirdly, the White Paper quite rightly referred to the growing importance of services in the contemporary economy, and ventilated the desirability of bringing services within the scope of restrictive practices legislation. I think it was the intention to refer this to the Monopolies Commission and thereafter, if necessary, to seek legislative authority to bring services, in particular services relating to goods within the 1956 legislation, or its successors, within this corpus of legislation. It is my understanding that this matter is now before the Monopolies Commission. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us what the Government's programme and intention in this particular field may be.
In addition, there is a relatively small point—I think it is almost a Committee point—relating to Clause 9. As your Lordships who are interested in this matter, and who have had to deal with it will know, companies can be put to very considerable expense, and a great deal of trouble, in preparing and presenting their case before the Restrictive Practices Court. I have no quarrel with that, but it would seem reasonable, therefore, that when agreements are not of any significance and are unlikely to merit investigation by the court, there should be some machinery by which companies could receive early warning as to whether or not they are going to have to prepare a case for a court hearing. This new clause, Clause 9, admittedly provides machinery under which the Registrar himself can apply for discharge to the Board of Trade. That is fine, so far as it goes. We believe this machinery could be usefully reinforced if it were possible for a company which believes the agreement affecting it to be quite insignificant, could apply, if need be through the Registrar, for discharge; and such a reinforcement of an early warning system would be of substantial benefit to the companies concerned without in any way abating the effect of this legislation.
Subject to these queries, I should like to reaffirm that we welcome this Part, the
192
second Part, of the Bill. I should like to make it equally clear that our welcome for the first Part, the first three clauses, is more muted. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord has said, but I should like to make it clear that it is the definite view of the Opposition that competition not only makes for industrial efficiency but also, in so far as it leads to reduced production and distribution costs, very much helps to the benefit of the consumer, too. Undoubtedly I would carry the noble Lord with me there.
Again, in an increasingly competitive world, we strongly feel that we must somehow contrive to be that much more competitive, and this can come only through giving free play to the cutting edge of competition; and for that reason we on these Benches are necessarily opposed to any unnecessary restraint on competition. I do not wish to be unduly dogmatic about this. I recognise that in the industrial climate in which we live the economics of scale are vitally important whether we are dealing with research, development, production, or indeed marketing. There may very well be cases in which a single firm, or even a single plant, can serve the total requirements of the United Kingdom, including the export requirements. I accept that this may mean in certain instances—but I hope in rare instances—that the full rigour of the 1956 Act may require abatement.
I also recognise that both industry and bodies like the N.E.D.C. have brought pressure to bear on the Government, and that is to some part reflected in the first two or three clauses of this Bill. On the other hand, my Lords, all of us have witnessed a fairly steady drift over the last few years towards greater Government intervention in industry, whether by nationalisation, renationalisation or backdoor nationalisation. We recognise that in the modern industrial world the State must inevitably be prepared to intervene more than in the past. Nevertheless, again without being unduly doctrinaire, I must make it perfectly plain that we on these Benches feel that this drift has gone far too far. Moreover, in so far as these first three clauses of the Bill are designed to aid further Government intervention of this sort, we can only view them with considerable scepticism. We shall therefore watch them in their operation of

193
these clauses with very keen interest, and we shall certainly criticise and feel free to oppose any orders brought before us which show that there is discrimination in favour of companies in which the Government themselves may have a stake.
It would, of course, help to relieve some of the doubts which at least some of us feel about these first three clauses of the Bill if, when he winds up, the noble Lord can say rather more about the sort of cases which they are designed to catch. How many of them do they anticipate there will be? Apart from this, the Government could go at least some way to reassure us if they could show themselves in this House more disposed than they were in another place to accept the need for some definite time limit to exemptions given under the Clause 1 machinery of this Bill. In another place the Secretary of State said on Second Reading that there would need to be a reasonable duration for Clause 1 agreements. We could not agree more. There may be an initial case for exemption, but we all know that monopolies or quasi-monopolies can well get soft or soggy; and it is of course quite true—I recognise this—that subsection (2) of this clause lays down that exemption should be given only for a specific period. That, again, is all very well so far as it goes. However, I should be a great deal happier if a definite maximum period for any exemption were written specifically into the Bill.
My Lords, I think I indicated at the start of my remarks that I would try to be brief, and I propose to redeem that pledge. In concluding, I should like once again to re-emphasise that we are glad to welcome in principle that part of the Bill—in fact, all of it from Clause 4 onwards—which strengthens the enforcement machinery of the 1956 Act. However, we do have certain reservations, to which I have given some voice, about the first part of this Bill.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I want to ask one question before the Minister replies. What is the increase in staff which he contemplates the Registrar of Restrictive Practices will require to put the provisions of this Bill into effect?
3.14 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the noble Earl was courteous enough to give me
194
notice of most of the points he proposed to raise, and this has been a great help to me because I have been able to work out a response beforehand, a crisp answer; and I think we shall not find ourselves too far apart. I will take the points he raised in turn. The first was that of bilateral agreements; that is, agreements under which only one party accepts a restriction. The 1964 Conservative White Paper suggested that the 1956 Act could be circumvented by a series of such agreements. The Bill does not deal with bilateral agreements. There are two main reasons for this. First, on closer examination it was realised that an appropriate provision would have been almost impossible to draft because of the difficulty of excluding a wide range of normal, commercial, bilateral agreements in which only one party accepts a restriction. Secondly, it seemed likely that a court would, on the basis of the 1963 decision in the Basic Slag case, interpret "agreement or arrangement" sufficiently broadly to catch a series of one-party agreements—and I think it is a series of these which concerns the noble Earl. Our legal advice is that that case has set up a situation where there would he a good deal of trepidation before anybody indulged in a series. I hope that will satisfy the noble Earl.
I move now to agreements to the like effect, to which the noble Earl has referred. The White Paper noted—I am referring to the Conservative White Paper now—that experience had shown that it was possible to reproduce the restrictive effect of an agreement which the court had already condemned by making another agreement which was restrictive in somewhat different terms. That is the noble Earl's point. It proposed that provisions should be made to cover such evasion, but the nature of the provision was unspecified. The Bill does not deal with this problem. The problem is far less important than appeared to be the case in 1964. Two recent decisions of the Restrictive Practices Court, first in the Galvanised Tank case and secondly in the Tyre Manufacturers Conference case, have demonstrated that the court is prepared to impose heavy fines, totalling almost £200,000 in the two cases mentioned, on those who make like-effect agreements. I think industry is unlikely to "try it on" when faced by penalties of that magnitude. I think the

195
courts have again done us a good turn to get us out of our difficulties here.
On the question of services, I do not know that I am quite so likely to satisfy the noble Earl. Certain powers to deal with services were taken in the Monopolies and Mergers Act, 1965, as he has already indicated. That Act empowered the Board to refer to the Monopolies Commission monopolies in services or restrictive agreements or situations affecting firms responsible for more than one-third of the supply of any particular service in the United Kingdom. The Board of Trade were empowered to act on an adverse report from the Commission. This follows the proposal of the 1964 White Paper, which proposed that the Monopolies Commission should be empowered to make investigations in this field at the request of the Government. Indeed, it is a wider power than that envisaged in the White Paper, because it deals with all services, not merely commercial services. I am not certain whether or not this satisfies the noble Earl. I rather gathered, in one sense, that he hoped to see service agreements brought within the general provisions of the Bill. This, as I have pointed out, has proved too difficult.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I also am not quite certain whether it satisfies the noble Earl or not. I should like to read what the noble Lord has said and study it. But in fact I was not proposing at this stage that services and service agreements relating to them should be brought within present legislation. I was interested to know how matters stood in relation to the Monopolies Commission.
LORD BROWN: The next point raised by the noble Earl concerned insignificant agreements. Here, I suggest there is no need for an early-warning system, as suggested by the noble Earl. The Registrar said in his first report, in paragraph 35:
"Whether or not the parties request it, the possibility of making a representation under Section 12 is always considered before an agreement is referred to the Restrictive Practices Court".
The Registrar always examines. The Registrar has assured us that this is still his policy, and he will continue it when Clause 9 replaces Section 12. He regards it as of importance that public money
196
and the time of the Court should not be wasted by inappropriate references. Firms or associations desirous of entering into a registrable agreement or making a recommendation may always ask the Registrar informally for indication whether the proposed agreement or recommendation is likely to be a successful candidate under Clause 9(2); that is, for exemption. How clear an indication can be given in any particular case must depend on all the circumstances; but, short of a binding promise, I think you may take it that the Registrar will be as helpful as he can. Of course, the firm, in registering an agreement, is perfectly entitled to accompany it with a memorandum of an explanatory sort which may help the Registrar to get a clear insight into the agreement and to give guidance. We certainly do not envisage any difficulties on these scores. Perhaps those comments will help the noble Earl.
The noble Earl was also concerned about the possibility, under the first three clauses, of wider-scale Government interference. I believe that it is possible to have a difference of opinion about these clauses when they are looked at in general; but if we were to be able to concentrate our different views on particular cases then I think we should rapidly come to agreement. The testing of the intention behind these clauses lies in how they apply to the individual cases as they arise. The noble Earl will be aware, and I am sure that he is, that circumstances are now emerging in industry where the amount of capital investment required to start a process is enormous and the risks involved are very great, but if the risks are not taken by British industry then some of our large competitors overseas will capture the markets. There should be agreements to look at capacity and organise it so that there will not be appalling losses which will inhibit further development. This is very much in the national interest. Cases of this kind and many others will be the likely recipients of attention under these first three clauses.
On the question of the anxieties about the period of exemption, again one must retain flexibility; one must not lay down a specific period but relate it to the circumstances of a particular case. These will be looked at carefully. There is a bipartisan approach. We are no more anxious to set up great monopolies

197
to exploit the situation than are Members of the opposite Benches; one can be assured of that. In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, I can say that the Registrar does not envisage any staff increase.
I should like to join with the noble Earl in congratulating the Registrar and the Court on the enormous number of cases dealt with successfully. It is a success story. I hope that I have answered the questions to the satisfaction of the noble Earl. I shall not detain the House any longer. I am grateful for the swift way in which this matter has been dealt with; and I think we can look forward to proper modification of the 1956 Act which will be helpful to all concerned.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.23 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Succession in cases of illegitimacy]:
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection (1) of the proposed new Section 4 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, after the first "children", to insert:
", whom that person has at any time during his life acknowledged as children of his,".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to the first two Amendments together, since they deal with opposite aspects of the same problem. These two Amendments relate to the new Section 4 (substituted by Clause 1 of this Bill) of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 which provides for succession in cases of illegitimacy. I think I should say that at present the law in Scotland is substantially the same as in England and Wales under the Legitimacy Act 1926.
198
If a woman dies intestate and is survived by no legitimate children, then any illegitimate children of hers surviving her share her estate; and if an illegitimate child is survived by his mother and has no legitimate children of his own or no spouse (or, in the case of a woman, if she has no legitimate children of her own), the mother succeeds to the illegitimate child's estate.
Under Clause 1 any illegitimate children are entitled to succeed equally with legitimate children to the estate of their father or mother. The parents both have the right to succeed to the estate of illegitimate children having no surviving children or no spouses The Amendments would limit the right of illegitimate children to succeed to the estate of a parent, or of a parent to succeed to the estate of a childless illegitimate child, to those cases where the parent has acknowledged the illegitimate child as a child of hers. This is the purpose of the Amendment. It is the acknowledgement of the illegitimate child as a child of the parent.
The Russell Committee on the Law of Succession in Relation to Illegitimate Persons considered whether there should be a distinction between the right to succeed a father and the right to succeed a mother, and whether some closer family relationship should he required for a father; but they gave their opinion, without giving any reasons, that the blood link should suffice in both cases. They recognised that it was more difficult to establish fatherhood than motherhood. They said that the facts dictate that. They also considered that affiliation orders cannot be regarded as sufficiently reliable to be taken as conclusive evidence of paternity. They then went on to consider whether any act of recognition should conclusively establish paternity for the purpose of succession; but they dismissed the idea of a formal declaration (having regard, they said, to the possibility of fraudulent declarations), and considered that it should be left to the courts to decide. In the last resort, of course, the courts will have to decide in any case. But I should have thought that one object should be to prevent many cases as possible from coming to the courts because of the distress that court action is likely to cause to the families of the deceased.
So far as the right of parents to succeed is concerned, the question of distress is in the hands of the parents concerned. I should have thought it not unreasonable that, as the Amendment suggests, the right should be subject to the requirement that a parent has acknowledged the child and has contributed to his maintenance. A mother should have little difficulty in establishing this without a court action unless she has, as the Committee put it, "jettisoned" the child at birth, in which case she has no claim in justice or morality on the child's estate. On the other hand, it seems to me quite unreasonable that a mother who has brought up a child should have to share the estate with a father who has never acknowledged the child and has never supported it in any way.
When a father claims the estate of an illegitimate child it should be up to the father to prove in court that he has supported the child. The Society of Writers to the Signet, one of the four legal bodies in Scotland who were consulted, said this in their observations on the Committee Report:
"Perhaps the most serious criticism which this Society would make on the recommendation of the Russell Committee is directed against the proposal that the father should have the same rights as the mother on the intestacy of the bastard. What is this, the Society must ask, if not a reward or a consolation prize for the not particularly commendable achievement of having sired a bastard? No justification for this recommendation is to be found in the Russell Report on the grounds of justice, morality or otherwise. It has all the appearance of an ill-considered and ill-advised attempt to simplify the rule of intestate succession by placing both persons in a similar position."
My Lords, that is fairly strong language, but in view of the fact that the Russell Committee did not themselves seek to justify their conclusions there, and they have not really been justified since, I hope that the noble Lord, in answering the second Amendment (unless he is prepared to accept the principle of it; I would not commit him to accepting the actual words) is able to tell us what is, in the view of the Government, the justification for this recommendation.
Turning to the right of an illegitimate child to succeed his mother, here again there seems no reason why he should succeed to the estate of a mother whom he has never known and to whom he
200
owes nothing except life itself. I recognise that this changes the existing law, but I think that most children who are jettisoned nowadays are adopted, so losing their rights to inherit from their natural parents while at the same time gaining the right to succeed to the estate of their adopted parents.
I come now to the question whether an illegitimate child should have the right to succeed to his father's estate and, if so, in what circumstances. The Russell Committee said, "Yes, in all circumstances," provided that the father can be found. If he cannot be found, he should be presumed to be dead. This recommendation is accepted in subsection (3) of the clause, but the Committee practically ignored the fact, which is revealed in the Appendix to their own Report, that in every single one of the countries quoted, except possibly Sweden, in which an illegitimate child has a right to succeed to his father's estate that right is conditional upon recognition by his father or else a formal declaration of paternity. Perhaps I might list the countries concerned: Australia, U.S.A., Belgium, Denmark, France. Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal. These are the countries that are given here.
The Committee do not appear to have inquired whether there were any grounds, in the experience of these countries, for the fears they expressed about fraudulent declaration. They give no reason at all for not coming into line with those countries. My first Amendment would make the right to succeed dependent upon acknowledgment by the parent during his lifetime. There seems to me no point in specifying what sort of acknowledgment. It could be by formal declaration; it could be through the father's signing the register at birth; it could be through less formal recognition—for example, by the child's living in the father's family. But in the absence of an acknowledgment of some sort the courts would have nothing but circumstantial evidence to go on; and plainly this has been firmly rejected by all the other countries quoted in the Appendix. So far, the Government have completely failed to justify their acceptance of this departure from experience.
My Lords, one of the members of the Committee, Sir Hugh Munro Lucas-Tooth, in his dissenting note, suggested

201
that one of the following tests should be applied. First, that the father signs the register of birth; second, that the father signs a document, possibly in some prescribed form, (recognising the bastard as his child; and, third, that the child lives for some period, however short, with the father as his acknowledged child. My Lords, it seems to me that in the broadest terms these Amendments give effect to the recommendation of Sir Hugh Munro Lucas-Tooth, and I commend this first Amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, after first ("children") insert (", whom that person has at any time during his life acknowledged as children of his,")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
3.35 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I welcome the fact that these Amendments represent to some extent a broadening of the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to illegitimate children. Having said that, however, I regret that I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept either the first or the second Amendment. My objections to the Amendments are quite simple. The Amendments are based on the view that the rights of illegitimate children to share in the estate of either parent could flow only from the acknowledgment of the child in some fashion or other. This was the view which, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, was considered by the Russell Committee, and considered very carefully. Indeed, it could be said to be the viewpoint expressed in the Note of Dissent, to which the noble Lord referred, by Sir Hugh Munro-Lucas-Tooth. The rest of the Committee who considered the matter in relation to a father's estate without exception came to the conclusion that it was wrong in principle that succession should be limited to cases where there had been voluntary recognition, whether formal or informal.
My Lords, this is the view which the Government completely accept. An illegitimate child whose father has chosen to acknowledge him during life would get the additional bonus of a right to succession, while the unrecognised child would, with the blessing of the law, continue to be ignored. This is a view which I find quite unacceptable. I appreciate that part of the noble Lord's anxiety
202
springs from the difficulty which he foresees of proving paternity for the purpose of succession under the Bill as al present drafted. We have acknowledged this, but I am not clear that with his formula it would necessarily be any easier to prove. The Amendment does not say what he intends by acknowledgment, and the noble Lord has made it quite clear that he wishes acknowledgment to be in almost any form: anything which could be described as acknowledgment would be acceptable to him.
In the second Amendment the noble Lord does not indicate how a contribution of maintenance to the support of an illegitimate child is to be proved in the many cases where such payment as there is is irregular and entirely formal, and in many cases quite unrecorded. The only equitable way in which to equate the rights of illegitimate children with those of legitimate children in relation to their parents' estate is, in the Government's view, to make the basis for these rights the same; namely, the simple test of paternity or maternity, as the case may be.
The question of maternity, as the noble Lord has said, is generally accepted not to present difficulties. The noble Lord's Amendment, by insisting that a mother must acknowledge her child, seems to raise an unnecessary complication and is the one point at which the noble Lord appears to be retracing a step which I thought he had taken at the last stage. There may be a great number of factors pointing towards or away from paternity, of which acknowledgement in any form is only one, although I readily concede that it is an important one. For example, a man, while never expressly acknowledging a child as his, may support or contribute to the support of the child either voluntarily or under a court order for affiliation and aliment.
In the light of these facts, the Russell Committee concluded that in cases of dispute the courts should be left to reach a decision on the basis of all the relevant information available to them. Thee courts are accustomed to dealing with claims against the estates of dead people, and no doubt they will establish appropriate practices for dealing with such cases. It may be that, without acknowledgement by his parents in his lifetime, or some firm evidence of a similar kind pointing

203
to paternity, the illegitimate person will have great difficulty in establishing a claim, particularly with the passage of time. Nevertheless, it seems to the Government that it would be totally wrong to refuse by Act of Parliament to recognise a child's moral claim simply because he will have difficulty in establishing it.
Coming to the second Amendment, if it is accepted that an illegitimate child should have equal rights with legitimate children in the estates of both parents on the basis of maternity or paternity, as the case may be, then I think the reciprocal right of the parents follows as a matter of equity. I know that one can argue that a father who has not contributed to his child's maintenance should not have a right to succeed the child, but this argument could apply also in the case of legitimate children. There are, as we all know, unfortunately a fairly large number of husbands who desert and fail to maintain their wives and legitimate children at present; but there is no suggestion that in these cases their succession rights should be curtailed. The reciprocal right of parents in their illegimate children's intestate estate on the simple basis of parenthood seems to me to follow as a natural corollary of an acceptance of the principle of equating the status of both types of children. We should bear in mind, too, that the right of a parent in any case is a conditional one. It operates on intestacy only where there are no children, legitimate or—under the new provision made by the Bill—illegitimate, and is of course subject to the prior and legal rights of a surving spouse.
I appreciate the care with which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has gone into this matter and the clarity with which he has presented his views to your Lordships. However, we come back to the fact that there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the noble Lord and me on this matter. He does not accept the principle that we should remove entirely the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children in this matter of succession, and that principle is one which I think must be accepted in its entirety.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, first of all, may I refer to the noble Lord's last remarks? He is talking about
204
removing entirely the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children in succession. Of course, this Bill does not do that. It does it only in respect of succession to the parents' estate and reciprocally. If it were the case that this Bill put the illegitimate child exactly in the same position as the legitimate child everywhere, then it would be much more logical than it is at present, when it is restricted.
I would like to make clear that the real difference between the noble Lord and myself is about whether we are broadening or narrowing the position. I see this question of the illegitimate child as one to be settled within the whole context of society, in the broadest possible context, and not in the narrow, blinkered limits of what is in the interests of an illegitimate child. That is the main distinction between us. The noble Lord said that he wanted this matter settled on principle, but it seems to me that the defect in the Committee's Report is that it has not shown how these principles are going to work out in practice. Principles are all very fine, but I venture to criticise the Report in this respect. The Committee should have considered more carefully how this would work out. They had the opportunity to see how this Amendment was working out in practice in other countries, but they do not appear to have done so. That seems to me a very remarkable gap.
At the moment noble Lords may be saying to themselves that this refers only to Scotland, but the Russell Committee was made up of six English and Welsh members and five Scots, or something of that order. As the Government have accepted this principle for Scotland, the possibility is that they will introduce it for England as well; so I think it is a pod thing, in view of the much greater number of illegitimate children that are to be considered, that the Government should consider its full implications and consider in much more detail the experience on the Continent than appears to have been done. I say no more than "appears to have been done" because, if the Committee did consider it in detail, they did not put it into their Report.
I do not think I can say anything more on this point. I do not know whether

205
I have convinced noble Lords or not that I am right in this matter of principle. I do not say that the exact terms of my Amendment are right and, if they were to be redrafted, I should be glad if the Government were to keep the law as it is so far as succession to a mother's estate is concerned, and vice versa. With that exception, I would leave this with your Lordships. I would just add that this is the sort of thing that time and again has been the subject matter of Private Members' Bills and it ought to be left to individual members and not treated on a Party basis. That being so, I am content to leave this Amendment to the decision of the House.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.48 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I come to a different point. Clause 2, unlike the previous one, has no parallel in the law of England. I hope that that will not mean that all English Peers will depart from the Chamber, because I think that this is a matter of some interest to all noble Lords. Clause 2 deals with rights to legitim—that is, the right of the legitimate children of a marriage to share equally a fixed proportion of the net movable estate of a parent; half of the net estate of a parent who is not survived by the other parent or, if the spouse does survive, one-third of the net estate after satisfaction of the prior rights of the spouse. Apart from the satisfaction of the prior right of a spouse, this right exists, whether there is a will left or not. If there is, it overrides the express wishes of the testator.
May I be allowed to comment that this right is something of an anomaly, since the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 abolished the distinction between heritable and movable property so far as succession is concerned, except in the case of legitim—that is not to say it is not a valuable protection, for example, for the sort of dependant who in England and Wales would be likely to obtain from the courts an award out of the estate under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 where he, or more likely she, was left out of the will. The difference is that in Scotland it is a fixed right, whereas in England the court has discretionary power. In practice, a Scottish testator,
206
guided by his legal adviser, is careful to see that his wishes are framed in accordance with the requirements of legitim. In some cases this right may already have been satisfied by a gift inter vivos in exchange for which the child may have renounced his right to legitim.
But is the testator as likely to take into account illegitimate children who have not grown up in his family? Does this not mean that many more wills will he upset than are now? Does it nut also leave the way open to demands not only by illegitimate children but by persons fraudulently claiming to be illegitimate children of the testator? And will not the beneficiaries under a will normally be anxious to avoid a court case, and so perhaps concede claims which have no justification in fact. In practice, the right of legitim is often waived by some members of a family in favour of others, or another, or in favour of the other parent. Is it as likely that an illegitimate child would waive the right if it were given in this Bill? I venture to doubt it. And if the illegitimate child did not waive that right, human nature being what it is, the probability is that other children may not waive their rights either.
My Lords, what I find most repugnant about this proposal to give the illegitimate child a claim to legitim is that it is an invasion of a peculiarly family right by an outsider in most cases, in the sense of someone from outside the family, and in most cases by one who, admittedly by no fault of his own, has never been a member of the family and has never shared its ups and downs or common bonds of duty and affection. The illegitimate child, in the vast majority of cases, like everyone else outside the family, will never have earned his right to legitim. The right is not just by right of birth and blood, I submit, but by right of being the issue of a lawful marriage; by right of birth into a family, and a participation in that family. It is one thing to allow an illegitimate child a share with his half-brothers and half-sisters in the intestate estate of a parent; it is quite a different thing to allow him to override the last wishes of that parent, duly expressed in a will.
What is the argument by which the Russell Committee seek to justify this recommendation? They say it is not

207
enough that a Scottish bastard should be on an equal footing with an English bastard by sharing with legitimate children rights of succession on intestacy; he must, they say, so far as rights of succession in Scotland are concerned, be placed on an equality with a legitimate child in every respect and in particular by sharing rights of legitim. I have already made clear that he is not to be completely on a par with legitimate children, but so far as succession to the rights of the parent is concerned he will, according to the Bill, be placed on a par.
May I again quote from the observations of the Society of Writers to the Signet, who said:
"In the view of this Society, the Committee has underrated the practical results which the changes in law which it recommends would have upon the institution of marriage, briefly referred to in paragraph 21 of the Russell Report, and upon the happiness and security of legitimate families, and has ignored the embarrassment which would inevitably be caused to several equally innocent persons closely related to the deceased who might otherwise have remained in total ignorance of some incident which may have occurred in the distant past of the deceased's life. In the words of a leading member of the Law Reform Committee of the Bar Council in England, which we have been privileged to read, it might be hard on a wife bringing up the children of her marriage if her husband's children by one or more mistresses were on an equal footing with her own. Such a change in the law would be to introduce polygamy by a sidewind."
This is the trouble about setting up a predominantly lay Committee to consider an isolated aspect of family law—and I say this knowing that the Committee was set up by the previous Government. If the Report truly reflects their considerations, the Committee have looked at their remit, in my view, from the point of view of the illegitimate child and his rights, to the almost total exclusion of the effect upon the community at large and the feelings and interests of others affected. The Committee, in my view, have taken the narrow view in this respect, and not I, as the noble Lord suggests. I am trying to look at it in the broadest context of the community and the nation.
Of course, where the illegitimate child is accepted into the family and brought up in the family, the child will in these days probably obtain rights through adoption. But if he does not, it is inconceivable to me that if the family is that
208
of his mother she will not make provision for him in her will, if she remembers to make a will; while if the family is that of his father, it is almost equally certain, I should have thought, if the child is brought up in the family, that the father will make provision in the will. In practice, therefore, illegitimate children who form part of the family are likely to share in the estate of the parent by whom they are brought up, without any need to perpetrate what is, in my view, the absurdity of giving illegitimate children the right to legitim without any form of adoption or even informal acknowledgment of the blood group. On the other hand, is it sensible or fair to give illegitimate children a right to share in the estate of a parent whom they may never have seen, for whom they have no feelings whatsoever, and with whom the parent/ child relationship has never existed except in pure procreation? Is that not bad social legislation? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I deal first with the reference the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made to the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, when he suggested that this perhaps made legitim an anomaly. The 1964 Act did not alter the right to legitim. The assimilation of heritable succession to movable succession had no effect on the matter. Legitim is still paid only out of movable estate.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That, if I may say so, is exactly what I said.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry. I understood the noble Lord thought that the situation had changed and that legitim now applied over the whole Bill. In that case, we need not worry your Lordships about it at all.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I should make the position clear. What I said was that an anomaly lay in the fact that the distinction between movable and heritable property, so far as succession is concerned, has been removed by the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 except in regard to legitim, where it still relates to movable property only. It is only in regard to legitim that the distinction which has been abolished by the Succession Act remains.
LORD HUGHES: I think the exchanges make it clear that the noble Lord and I are of exactly: he same opinion as to where the law now stands. On the question of the Amendment that we are now discussing, we have covered fairly fully the same ground as was covered in Committee, and I do not wish to go over all that was then said. However, I should like to remind your Lordships that, following pressure in this House and elsewhere for action regarding the succession rights of illegitimate persons, and on the recommendation of the Russell Committee, the Government introduced this clause giving illegitimate persons the same right as legitimate persons to legitim from their parents' estate. It is this right which the noble Lord would remove from the clause. He would in fact take out the only indefeasible right that the Bill confers on illegitimate persons, the other main right, that on intestate succession, being one which can be removed by the making of a will. Thus I think I can safely say that the carrying of this Amendment would strike at the roots of the purpose of this Part of the Bill, which is to improve the succession position of illegitimate persons.
Looking again at our discussion at the Committee stage, I realise that there may have been a misunderstanding between the noble Lord and myself when I referred to the English Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938. I of course appreciate—indeed, at Committee stage I said so—that the provisions of this Act are dissimilar to the Scottish law of legitim. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has made perfectly clear, legitim is a right fixed by law to a share of an estate. The provision made under the 1938 Act is at the discretion of the court. But the point I was seeking to make at the last stage is that neither in English law nor in Scots law is it acceptable for a father to have the right to cut off a child without a penny. In both cases the children are given a claim against the estate of their parent which the parent cannot defeat by making a will. It is this right, different in nature in the two countries, which the Russell Committee recommended should he conferred on illegitimate as well as on legitimate persons.
If the noble Lord prefers the nature of the English right, rather than the long-
210
standing Scottish tradition, it is of course open for him to accept his own advice as to the way in which these matters ought to be followed by seeking to introduce a Bill to amend the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 by substituting provisions on the English lines for the Scots law of legitim. But I should not wish to suggest that he would have much prospect of success if he were to venture into that field.
The noble Lord referred to the possibility, indeed the probability, of disturbance of the family at or after the time of the father's death if an unknown person comes forward claiming legitim. I must admit that this is not impossible. How can it possibly be said to be impossible? On the other hand, the chances of a person's establishing a claim without good evidence, such as past recognition, must be very slight. But what is the morality of this situation if from time to time it may occur? Of course it may be unpleasant for the family. But who carries the responsibility? Surely it cannot be a good reason for depriving an illegitimate child of its inheritance that its father has during his lifetime successfully concealed its existence from his family. This is a simple point. The Bill sets out to improve the illegitimate child's situation by improving its succession rights. It does this by equating its successive rights against its parents with those of a legitimate child. The noble Lord's Amendment would defeat both the purpose and the method of the Bill by removing the one indefeasible right that it provides. For that reason, I must advise your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
In what the noble Lord said, although I am completely disagreeing with the principle which lies behind it, I must freely admit that he stated the case for it both with clarity and with fairness, except on one point. When he referred to the rights of legitim which a child had, he added the words, which so far as I can gather have no basis in law, "and of participation in that family". A legitimate child is not deprived of its share to legitim because it has not participated in that family. There can be circumstances where for one reason or another this does not arise. I know that when he put in these words the noble Lord was describing a situation which undoubtedly will exist

211
in the overwhelming mass of cases of ordinary family life consisting of parents and their legitimate children. But in fact when he added it to an expression of the law he appeared to be importing as law something which of course is not so, and using it as a justification for excluding in the case of the illegitimate child, because non-participation in the case of the illegitimate child may be as much the rule as participation is in the case of the legitimate child.
In conclusion, I would say this. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made reference to the views of one of the Scottish legal societies. Your Lordships will recollect that at the Committee stage he asked about the consultations that had taken place, and I gave a list of a very large number of bodies, legal, religious, voluntary and so on, which had been consulted; and out of all that number the noble Lord has fallen back on one. On the question, which he also brought in, of the effect on marriage, I should like to say this. The evidence given by the Church of Scotland (Social Interests Sub-Committee of the Church and Nation Committee) was very brief. This was the view they expressed to the Russell Committee. The only expression of substance which I have been able to find is this sentence:
"It is the opinion of my Committee that the question of any possible weakening of the marriage bond should not be taken into consideration in any discussion of the legal status of the child born out of wedlock as there is no moral justification for penalising the child for the sins of the parents."
The Sub-Committee put forward no proposals as to how the law should be amended. When the Church of Scotland was consulted by the Government about the Russell recommendations, after the Report had been issued, the views again expressed were very brief:
"… there are no more observations to be made".
My Lords, the view expressed by the Sub-Committee is the view I have put forward time and time again in our discussions on this Bill. If anybody has done wrong in this matter it is not the illegitimate child, and the Government are seeking in this Bill to remove, in so far as it is appropriate to do so, the penalties which are being visited upon the illegitimate child. The noble Lord
212
referred to the fact that I had said we wanted this to be on the widest possible basis, and he said that we were not in fact doing so. But he will recollect that when there was a reference to applying it, say, to grandparents, I dealt with that point. The illegitimate child is not there as a result of any action taken by the grandparents, so therefore the interaction in relation to succession is between parents and children, between children and parents, and this is a perfectly logical justification for confining it in that way.
I appreciate very much how the noble Lord feels about this matter. I appreciate the attitude which he has in relation to the value, say, of adoption into another family, rather than hanging on or conferring the rights of a legitimate child on an illegitimate child. It may well be that with the passage of time, and the greater use of adoption measures, much of what we are doing in this Bill will not in fact arise. But this is a case where we cannot wait for perhaps many years to pass during which time some, perhaps many, illegitimate children will continue to suffer the disadvantages they have at the present time. As I have said, this is the one right conferred on the illegitimate child which no action of the parent can take away from him, and it would be wrong that we should accede to the deletion of this clause.
4.9 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I think he has replied to my arguments extremely fairly, although every now and again he has come along with an argument ad hominem, which in some cases I do not think was quite justified. For example, at no point (I think he rather pulled my leg about this) have I given advice that we in Scotland should substitute the provisions of the Inheritance Family Provision Act for the present law of Scotland, legitim and the rest. The noble Lord seemed to think that in the Committee stage I had rather suggested that we should get rid of legitim. I did not do so, and I did not do so this afternoon. I said that the position is somewhat anomalous in law, and that is so. But I made no suggestion whatsoever that we should get rid of legitim.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, may I say that I am relieved to hear

213
him say that. But to a certain extent I was pulling his leg, because at one point he appeared to be inciting English Peers to rally to his support. I thought it might be worth while to point out that if he felt there were advantages in trying to adapt Scottish law to English law, there was a way in which this could be done.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is perfectly clear, and I suppose in that case it would be possible to have exactly the same legislation for Scotland as for England. The Russell Committee did not think that it was within its terms of reference to recommend the answer, but since a United Kingdom Committee was set up the implication was that the intention of the Government then appointing it was that the laws on the succession of illegitimate children should be as nearly as possible assimilated. Does that, or does it not, mean that since there is no legitim in England it should be left out of account altogether? The noble Lord says that if we take this clause out we are removing the one indefeasible right that the Bill provides. By the same token, if legislation is introduced for England it will not be possible to introduce an indefeasible right at all because there is no legitim in England. Unless legitim were to be introduced specifically for the purpose of allowing illegitimate children to share in it there would be no point in the argument about similarity between England and Scotland. I should have thought it would have been sufficient to have brought the law of succession on intestacy into line without touching legitim at all.
I take the noble Lord's point that, when I brought together the facts of being born into a family and participation in that family, I was going beyond the law. I did not mean it as an expression merely of the law but as an expression of life as it really is—if you like to put it thus, a philosophical expression—and I would not accept his strictures that I was unfair in that regard. I was portraying exactly what the position really is legally and morally—or perhaps I should say legally and practically.
In spite of what the noble Lord has said about the support that the Government's proposal received from the Church and Nation Committee, I am bound to confess that that is information which I failed to elicit, although I tried to get it.
214
I think one has to bear in mind the fact that on balance we have had advice from the legal bodies against the Government's proposal. I have before me what the noble Lord said. I did not obtain the views of the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Court; I did not obtain the views of the Scottish Law Agents and the Law Society of Scotland, to which the noble Lord did not refer. I am sorry, the noble Lord did refer to that Society. At any rate, up to the very last point when the Bill was sent along all three bodies were strongly against the views of the Government.
1 think possibly that once a lawyer sees a Bill in draft form he is apt to take a slightly different view and say: "Well, that is that; we had better accept it". But in the early stages the lawyers accepted that the S.S.C.s were, I think, stongly against the proposals of the Government. I know that at the last stage of the Bill the noble Lord said that it was by no means conclusive, but the reason why I referred to this point on the Committee stage was because, after all, these lawyers see more cases in the course of their experience than most other people. I say "most" and not "all" because, of course, there are the social workers as well; they are giving advice in these matters and weighing the pros and cons, and I should have thought their advice was well worth listening to. I am bound to say their first reactions were the best, as being the most natural reactions.
I agree that there is a difference in philosophy, but as I have indicated before I doubt the validity of the maxim from which this policy has been deduced. It is easy to talk about injustice being done; it is easy to say that the illegitimate child should not suffer for a wrong for which he is in no way responsible; but to deduce a whole series of law from that theoretical consideration, without considering its practical effects, seems to me to be a quite mistaken approach. And so far as legitim is concerned, I think this is the point where we have to consider whether the wishes of the testator ought to be overriden in this regard; whether a right to legitim should be given to all kinds of people, some of them perhaps well up in years, who have never had any expectation of such a right and who had never thought they had

215
such a right, because they were not identified with the family.
It seems to me that so far as legitim is concerned this is something which could well be left out of the Bill altogether. For my part, I am prepared to accept the right to succeed on intestacy. I am prepared to see, in that respect, the law of Scotland being assimilated with the law of England, but I do not see why, so far as legitim is concerned, there should be a right—what the noble Lord has described as "the one indefeasible right in the Bill". I do not see why that should be made available to an illegitimate child who, in the vast majority of cases, will have had nothing whatsoever to do with the parent, because certainly in recent years, and from now on, those children who are brought up in the families will normally
be adopted; and at any rate it seems to me almost certain that if they are brought up in the family they will be provided for in a will.
As for the rest, the noble Lord is quite right. I take the view that if the child cannot be brought up in the family of its natural parents the best thing for it is to be adopted and thereby to gain rights of succession to the adoptive parents. But as we have already dealt with the rights of succession for Scotland in this Session, this seems to me to be as far as we should go at the present time, and I hope noble Lords will support me in this Amendment.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mar, E.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Margadale, L.

Albermarle, E.

Essex, E.

Milverton, L.

Atholl, D.

Falkland, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Auckland, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Audley, Bs.

Fortescue, E.

Moyne, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Oakshott, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Glentanar, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Rockley, L.

Carrington, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sackville, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Colgrain, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Guest, L.

St. Just, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hawke, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Cromartie, E.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Sandford, L.

Daventry, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Selkirk, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Dilhorne, V.

Ilford, L.

Somers, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Dudley, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Teviot, L.

Dunleath, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Thurlow, L.

Eccles, V.

Lambert, V.

Vivian, L.

Effingham, E.

Lothian, M.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Willingdon, M.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Crook, L.

McLeavy, L.

Airedale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Amulree, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Meston, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Morrison, L.

Balogh, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Moyle, L.

Bannerman of Kildonan, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Ogmore, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hall, V.

Plummer, Bs.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Brockway, L.

Henley, L.

Rhodes, L.

Burden, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Carron, L.

Hughes, L.

Rowley, L.

Champion, L.

Latham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Samuel, V.

Citrine, L.

Lindgren, L.

Segal, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Shackleton, L.

Sorensen, L.

Swaythling, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Williamson, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Wade, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.29 p.m.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONANmoved, to leave out Clause 8 and to insert the following new clause:
"8.—(l) The principle of primogeniture and the existing rights in succession shall stand, subject to modification as follows—

(i) the widow shall be first in line of succession,

(ii) illegitimate children shall have equal claim with legitimate children in line of succession.

(2) In the event of a crofter dying intestate the Scottish Land Court shall have power to determine the succession to the croft and shall take into consideration the line of succession but shall have power to depart from the line of succession in order if their study of the human situation justifies the selection, as tenant of the croft of a person in line of succession other than the first."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the advice he gave me at the Committee stage of this Bill on June 13. He said, referring to myself, "He must work out his own salvation" (col. 264), and that I think was because I moved the deletion of Clause 8 but I did not substitute any other clause. I am glad to say to your Lordships that I have now found a "salvation" Amendment; to leave out Clause 8 and insert the new clause as printed. I hope that, as true Scots, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes and myself, it will not be a case of Greek meeting Greek. I do not think the noble Lord will quarrel with sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (1) of this new clause. There I think we are in some agreement. But subsection (2) is designed to restore to the Scottish Land Court power to deal with croft succession.
Until 1955 the Scottish Land Court was responsible for dealing with succession. It won universal respect and confidence among crofters, and as a court of law can safely be entrusted with the powers in the second part of my Amendment—powers that could not be vested in any other body. It must be remembered that the Scottish Land Court is not only a court of law, free from pressure of any kind and concerned only
218
with justice and fair dealing; but a body uniquely adapted to administer where it will—in a court house, a village hall, a schoolroom, or even in a croft kitchen. Indeed, I have known the Land Court meet in a bedroom. For the, time being that bedroom was the court, because someone who was bedridden there was connected with the case being heard. It has always had members who are, and were, Gaelic speaking, and who can establish a clear understanding of the minds and wishes of those who will be able to explain themselves clearly and without effort only in the Gaelic language. There are still many of these people left.
The crofter's economic situation, his geographical position, the fact that he does not own his croft—that so Jar as his croft is concerned he has rights but no property in it—all justify restoring to him the services in this matter of the Scottish Land Court, which was originally set up to assist him. By abolishing inequity, this action would secure flexibility in intestate succession, and also, by presenting crofters with familiar and comprehensible circumstances, serve to increase stability in crofting. That is a thing that we have to do, so far as the Highlands and Islands are concerned, to increase and develop the stability of indigenous working on the land, of the small man. This would accordingly help the Crofters Commission in their work, and also ether agencies charged with the development of crofting and the Highlands.
I should like to quote what the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, said on July 4, in the debate on the Medicines Bill:
"We who are lawyers, or concerned with the machinery of Government or with constitutional matters, have a growing anxiety about the way in which the rights of the citizen are increasingly interfered with otherwise than by judicial procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 527].
What a lawyer of the standing of the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, says should receive considerable attention in your Lordships' House. On June 13, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said:
"I am advised that in the large majority of cases the bulk of the crofter's estate consists of the croft, and the most important asset

219
there is the croft house."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13/6/68, col. 262.]
If there were no estate except the croft, each person who has a claim to a share in the estate would appear to be entitled to a share of the croft in some way in accordance with the terms of the 1964 Act.
If a man is awarded the croft, he will surely have to pay cash to the others to equalise the inheritance. If, for example, four persons had equal claims to share in the estate valued at £2,000, the person awarded the croft would presumably have to pay each of the others £500. Not many would do this. Where, for example, would the money come from? It would be a quite unrealistic removal of capital from the croft, from which in fact and in law the capital cannot be separated. The crofter does not own his croft or any of the improvements on it, including the house. They belong to the landlord, and when the landlord dies his property—which must appear on the inventory for confirmation—includes the crofts in his estate. The crofts cannot therefore appear on the crofter's inventory for confirmation as well as the landlord's.
What the crofter has are rights, and these can be valued by the Scottish Land Court; and they are valued by the Scottish Land Court only when the croft is given up by the crofter. One of the crofter's rights is to provide himself with a house on the croft, in which he can live while he exercises his other rights as a crofter. The house is legally an improvement, and as such is not the property of the crofter. For example, he cannot get a loan from a bank with the house as security as it is not his property; nor can the house be valued as part of his estate for confirmation, because the inventory can include only his property.
If a crofter is put out of his croft or surrenders it, then the Land Court will assess the value of the rights he is losing. These rights include a right to receive compensation for any improvements that he or his predecessors have made, including drains, fences, and the house he has the right to provide himself with for his use. Crofters are most disturbed at the power that might be vested in an executor or executors as envisaged in
220
the Government's Bill, and would much prefer to have restored to the Land Court the power it had originally. To submerge the crofter's succession law in the general law of Scotland is, in my opinion and that of many of the crofters themselves, to undermine the confidence of the crofter and take from him the certain knowledge that the croft can continue as such.
Through nearly 100 years crofting law has been built up to enable people to live on what, often enough, is the poorest land in the Highlands and in the most remote areas. These small men of agriculture will, I hope, be there in great numbers when the Highlands and Islands Development Board put into force the Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, the other day, the Highlands and Islands Development Bill, giving the Highlands Board the authority to lake equity shares in businesses of small character right throughout the whole Highland area. That is what is required to restore the economic fabric of the whole of the Highlands which has been for so long patched. Conurbations of a seashore character will never succeed in solving the Highland problem. Conurbations will come of their own accord; profits will push them into the area. But what we really need is a rejuvenation of the whole fabric of crofting; and it can be rejuvenated, because these people are there, and have been there for a hundred years, provided they are allowed to have this security of tenure which has never been interfered with since the Napier Commission in the time of 1866. It cannot be right that the law of crofting should be altered merely to suit, say, departmental convenience or for other reasons of that character.
My Lords, I hope and I beg of the Government that they will do nothing to diminish the role of the small man in agriculture—and he is still legion throughout Scotland—and do nothing to interfere with the security which has been his up to date. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 8, and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Bannerman of Kildonan.)
4.42 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: With much that the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, has said I do not disagree, and I

221
do not propose to comment upon it for the simple reason that so very little of what he said has any relevance at all to the Bill which we are discussing, or even to the Amendment which he himself is moving. I do not say this in any unkind way, because the noble Lord, because of his interest in these matters, has ventured into almost a dissertation of his philosophy on the way of life in the Highlands, particularly in relation to crofting. That could be quite appropriate in one of our ordinary Scottish debates, but in relation to this Amendment I suggest that it is a little away from the strictly relevant.
There is one matter I was a little alarmed about. The noble Lord started to quote from something which I said, I think, on June 13. He then went on to read other things which were quotations from somebody else, or he was reading a brief which somebody had given him—and I began to be alarmed at some of the things that I was purported to have said on June 13. Then I realised that the noble Lord had not indicated when he stopped quoting from me and started quoting from somebody else. I received an agitated note from the Box saying that these extracts attributed to me were not known. So I would be grateful if, when the noble Lord is consulting with Hansard, he would let them know when my quotation marks come in at the finish and when somebody else's start.
It is true that concern has been expressed throughout the passage of the Bill about the proposals for crofting tenure. Both here and in another place repeated efforts have been made by my colleagues and myself to explain the effect of these provisions and to answer a variety of criticisms about the framing of them. Despite this, some doubt would appear to remain in at least one quarter. It would be a great pity if your Lordships were left with the impression that this is other than an excellent measure and one widely welcomed in crofting circles. I should therefore like to deal, I should hope once and for all, with the various criticisms that have been made —and repeated—despite the fact that they have been answered again and again.
Your Lordships will appreciate that I am not dealing solely with what the noble
222
Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, has said in your Lordships' House, but with some of the things which are being said outside your Lordships' House, and particularly with reference to the debate here at the last stage and to my own remarks during that debate. One of the things which has been said was that preliminary consultation was inadequate. The short, and I should hope convincing, answer to that is that each body consulted in 1964 when crofters were excluded from the ordinary law of succession was again consulted on this occasion. This includes the question of reference to the Land Court which was not consulted either in 1964 or on this occasion.
Secondly, it has been said that there has not been adequate time for discussions during the passage of the Bill. It was said, in fact, that this was "rushed" legislation. The Bill was first introduced in another place on February 21 last, and a period of almost five months has passed during its passage through both Houses. It cannot be said, therefore, that there has not been adequate time for consultation and explanation of the crofting provisions of the Bill. There has been no after tilt to restrict discussion. My colleagues and I have dealt with questions and doubts that have been raised. There has been adequate opportunity for any broadly based concern or any justified criticism in to emerge. Neither has happened and it will simply not do to imply there is some objection which would have manifested itself in some other circumstances.
Thirdly, it has been suggested that the provisions are bad for crofting. My Lords, none of the criticisms made has proved to be of any substance. All that is left is that in some cases, not many, it may cost the beneficiary a little more to have the estate confirmed. Your Lordships must appreciate that in many cases there will be more in a crofter's estate than just the lease of the croft and the permanent improvements, and they are, as the noble Lord described them, croft house, byres, fences et cetera. For example, except in rare cases, there will always be some stock on the croft, furniture in the house and perhaps there may also be other movable estate such as, for instance, some money in the bank. Such items would at present be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the

223
Succession (Scotland) Act 1964. Confirmation is therefore—at least in theory—necessary even at present for such items, and for this reason it is not considered that the present proposals, requiring the lease of the croft to be included in the confirmation, would add appreciably, if at all, to the cost. In this the crofter is in the same case as every other member of the community and enjoys the same reliefs and benefits as other small estates.
I wonder whether these few people who are objecting to these proposals really understand what the present law is and what the change will be. Do they understand that what is excluded from the succession law at the present time is merely the croft and its permanent improvements? Do they realise it does not cover the stock on the croft? Do they realise that the furniture in the house is not excluded at the present time? Do they realise that the money in the bank, any investments—that none of these is dealt with solely under crofting law, but that all of these items come under the ordinary succession law at the present time?
In so far as there may be any little extra cost in some cases on confirmation, this represents a price to be paid for the provision I have no doubt, but especially in view of the greater benefits it will confer on the women of the crofting community, it is a small price and one that no crofter will begrudge. Your Lordships know that through the generations it has all too often been the womenfolk who have held the crofts together when their menfolk have had to leave the township in search of work, in defence of their country, or for some other reason. What has tended to become obscured in all the exchange of discussion is that this is primarily a provision to protect the widow. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord has abandoned the previous attitude and now brings in, in another form, protection for the widow as being the first claim with which the Bill would deal.
To turn to the terms of the Amendment itself, although I must congratulate the noble Lord on accepting my advice to put down an Amendment of his own —and he quoted my words that he must seek his own salvation—I am afraid that I must disagree with him if he thinks that he has found any salvation. I must em-
224
phasise the fact that, so far as I am concerned, he has not managed to find a provision better than the present one. Clause 8 applies the provisions of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 to the tenancy of a croft. The main effect of the 1964 Act is that in the case of an intestate estate which is less than £2,500 (or where there is no issue £5,000) the widow will receive the whole estate including the tenancy of the croft. The proposal now made would mean that the widow would receive the whole of the intestate estate, even where it was much greater than £5,000.
The Succession (Scotland) Act went reasonably far to protect the rights of a widow, but to do what the noble Lord suggests, to provide that because it happens to be a crofting estate the widow should get the lot, no matter how much it shall be—and there are occasions when a crofting estate can be reasonably substantial—is just going too far. The Amendment starts off by stating that the principle of primogeniture should be perpetuated. This is what we are trying to get away from in the Bill. For example, if the principle of primogeniture were applied where there was no widow, the eldest son, whether he were legitimate or illegitimate, at home or an absentee, could claim the croft to the exclusion of another son or daughter who might have stayed at home and worked the croft during the later years of the father's life. The noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, then saw where sticking to the principle of primogeniture would lead him, because he then went on in the second part of the Amendment to depart from primogeniture.
Going behind the Amendment itself to what I think may be the purpose rather than the effect of the Amendment, I should think that the aim of the Amendment is to accept all that the Bill proposes, with the single exception that it would substitute the Land Court for the executor as the body empowered to make the selection of the successor to the croft tenancy. I think that this is what lies behind it. Unfortunately, that is not what the Amendment does. I have suggested on previous occasions that when we consider Amendments we must consider what the Amendment does; we must leave aside for purposes of our decision what the mover of the Amendment

225
thought his Amendment was going to do. I am afraid I cannot see why the noble Lord should consider that crofters are less able to manage their affairs than all other classes of the community are. Therefore, I cannot follow him in the suggestion that the Land Court in these estates is to be preferred to an executor.
Three things that I said in this House were sought to be criticised. First of all, I was accusx1 of saying that consulting the Crofters Commission is the next best thing to consulting individually with every crofter in the Highlands. That statement was characterised as non-sense. It would have been if I said it, but I did not. What I said was "Consulting the Crofters Commission as I have suggested …". The words "as I have suggested" were very carefully excluded from the reference which appears in the Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald. "As I have suggested" refers hack to the earlier part of the paragraph, where I said
"The obvious body to consult is the body which looks after the interests of crofters; that is the Crofters Commission, and through them the direct representation of the crofters." —[OFFICIAL REPORT 13/6/68; cols. 264–5.]
One can make something look very foolish if one quotes it out of context, or leaves out anything which is inconvenient to the argument.
Could I give some indication of who were the people consulted? Following a revision of the procedure for appointing panels of Commission assessors, these undoubtedly now provide the most democratic method of sounding crofter opinion which has ever existed in the crofting areas. Nominations were asked for from more than 700 grazings committees which are themselves elected direct by the crofters in the townships. Where more than one name was suggested by the grazings committee in an area the committee were asked to put the nominees into an order of priority. The only difficulty arose in areas where there are no grazings committees, and in these cases crofters were invited through the Press to submit nominations direct. In every instance the Commission appointed as the Assessor the person preferred by the majority of the grazings committees who replied to their inquiry.
In addition to all this, the Commission have appointed to the panel a nominee of
226
each of the crofters' unions which may wish to be represented, and it must be borne in mind that many of the nominees of the grazings committees are also members of the unions. I know of no body which has gone to such lengths, in the Highlands and Islands or elsewhere, to establish such good lines of democratic communication. Furthermore, the Bill is not law until it has passed through all its stages, and the main part of the democratic process lies in the discussions and dialogue taking place during that time. It would be wrong to allow emphasis to settle the other way—that is, on pre-consultation, especially when, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the same procedure has been followed this time as last.
Moreover, immediately the Bill was published the significance of its provisions were given much wider publicity than the 1964 provisions. They were explained to Conferences of Assessors in Stornoway, Lochboisdale, Lerwick, Dingwall, Oban, Ullapool and Thurso, to the Lochaber Crofters' Union, to the Shetland Crofters' Union and representatives of the Council of Social Service in Shetland, to representatives of the N.F.U. at a meeting in Sutherland. Representatives of the N.F.U. were also present at the area conference in Thurso. The Commission even arranged for an explanation of the proposed change to appear in the Shetland Times, the Stornoway Gazette and the Oban Times. Yet we are accused of not having consulted the views of the crofters!
Out of all this has emerged the opposition to this particular aspect if at it will break up crofting in the Highlands if the lease of the croft is subject, to the same provisions of the law as c very-thing else which the crofter may own. In some cases, as I said in Committee, it may be that the lease of the croft is the biggest single asset the crofter has. It may in some cases be the bulk of his estate, but there will be other cases where it will be only part of his estate. We know the extent to which crofters have branched out into other lines to make crofting a way of life which they can continue by supplementing it by the creation or other assets. All this is to be regarded as of no importance.
The last thing I ever expected to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman

227
of Kildonan, was that salvation in the Highlands rested on going back to something which existed before 1955. Yet that is what he said. He said that a change was made in 1955, and that we ought to get back to the position which existed before then. The small opposition, from a very small part of the crofting community, which has been made to this proposal arises from what I believe is a genuine misunderstanding of the provisions of the Bill, a misunderstanding which persists despite all the efforts that have been made to get the position clear. I do not think that any Government, or any body such as the Crofters Commission, could possibly have done more to make the matter clearer. I am quite certain that where they may have failed with a few individuals—and I repeat, it is only a few individuals—nothing that I could add in this debate in your Lordships' House will make any difference to these few individuals whatsoever. What I am quite certain about is that this is something which can be applied with equal justice in the crofting communities as elsewhere, and the crofting community has absolutely nothing to fear; rather it has much to welcome in this proposal. I therefore invite your Lordships not to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan.
5.1 p.m.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, I see that I have the sympathy of the House. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, should take exception to anyone quoting from a brief.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I want to make it perfectly clear that I took no exception to the noble Lord quoting from a brief. I was taking exception to his not making it clear when the quotation from my remarks ended and the quotation from somebody else started. I do not mind having my own words fathered on to me, but I do not want anybody else's illegitimacies.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, the whole point about it, if I may say so, is that I expressly quoted the words which he said to me—that I must work out my own salvation. I did not say, "finish quotes". I should have said that to make it quite clear to the
228
noble Lord that the rest of the quotation I was talking about was not in any portion his. "Here then", I said, "is the salvation Amendment." I have it written down here. Surely, that is quite a distinct break from the quotation which I made? Later on I certainly made a quotation concerning the court, and its effect—the Scottish Land Court particularly being left out of the judicial decision concerning succession. This is important. I quoted the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, to the noble Lord. He took no account of Lord Shawcross's statement concerning interference with the individual in this country by other than a judicial body.
I am trying to see to it that the crofter receives some attention from the Scottish Land Court, which has been the instrument for a long time in decisions concerning the crofter's wellbeing, including succession. I would say that it is far more necessary for the crofters to have the Scottish Land Court operating than a body of a non-judicial character, an appointed body, a body which can be affected from the outside, and by influences from outside. I would far rather see a judicial body like the Land Court, which could not be influenced, deciding some of the interests of the crofters.
It is not going back in anything but time to 1955, and that was when the Scottish Land Court decided succession. Now we are making the situation of succession to the croft more complicated. But what the noble Lord has never referred to is the fact that this Bill suggests that the executor is to decide in the intestate crofter's case. Who are the executors? The executors are interested people in the crofter's croft and the succession to the croft. Surely, there is no parity, no equality, no justice in the fact you should employ a judge who is an interested person in the disposal of the crofter's estate? This the Bill provides for and asks for. We protest, and the crofters protest, that the executor whom you are proposing in many cases will be an interested person. Not only that, but the Bill allows not only one executor but one, two, three, four or perhaps five executors, all of whom would be concerned to fight it out concerning this little right of the crofter in his croft. That is how I interpret this Bill. He can suggest himself as an executor; he can put himself

229
forward as an executor when he may have an interest of some character. I want a disinterested person, a judicial party outside of the crofting interest entirely, to do something about the bequests of the croft. There may be five or six who are prepared to inherit interests in the croft.
The noble Lord mentioned the fact that there may be one or two cattle on the croft and some furniture in the bedrooms. As if that is going to affect the issue in any way to any great extent! If there are five people with an interest in the croft (this is the thing that we want to avoid in crofting) there may be a possibility in the end that the croft will be divided into four or five portions in order to satisfy the interests of the people who consider they have a share in the croft. What happens then? In the end the croft disappears. Unfortunately, the outlook to-day is an outlook which says that the small man in agriculture is a difficulty. The economic farmer does not like him. Big business, if applied to crofting, would not work. Business methods of a farming character might not work. What we feel is hopeful in the crofting future is that ancillary industries may be brought in (and we have been waiting for them long enough) so that the crofter may have an extra cash wage with which to carry on his living and stay in areas that are remote and not very kindly ones.
These are some of the things which perturb me, and perturb the crofter. I am not here merely to say something concerning a Bill that "shoves" crofting law into the middle of what is Scottish general law. Crofting law is of its own, building up, as it were, over a hundred years. It may be old, but it is valuable and good, and it has enabled thousands of people to stay on the land who might otherwise not have been able to do so. Now they are being, in a way, threatened in the security on the croft, and we do not wish any possibility of division in the croft to come to upset and reduce the number of crofters on the land, although that is what official opinion would like to see, crofters' assessors.
In preparation for this Amendment I consulted for my salvation the Crofters' Federation in the Highlands and Islands. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has not mentioned them at all. He has mentioned the Crofters Commission's
230
assessors. He has said that they are elected by townships of crofters in the various parts of the Highlands; b it that is not the fact, either. Often enough there is no election whatsoever, but the name of a nominee is sent in by the secretary. That happens quite frequently.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, would the noble Lord give the origin of that statement? What authority does lie cite for making a statement of that kind?
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, I can refer the noble Lord again to the authority. I will give the noble Lord the specific authority, but the general authority for that statement is the Federation of Crofters Unions.
I would finally say this. One cannot dispose of an issue of this kind in a facetious manner. It is not at all a question of scoring debating points. This concerns the livelihood and the future security of a section of people whose living and being has had to be, in a way, protected because of the difficulties of their whole situation. We do not wish that the law applying to these crofters and to their succession should be taken and put into the general law. Take 1964, for example. It was excluded then. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, does not tell the House why it is not excluded now. It was good then. Why is it not good now? All these matters are matters, of serious moment. I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. So far as I am concerned, as a debater it your Lordships' House I still have a long way to go, but when I say something concerning the people of the Highlands and the knowledge I have of their living, I say it not lightly but seriously.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the Amendment?
LORD BANNERMAN or KILDONAN: No; I wish to hold to it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 15 [Procedure]:
5.13 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, with permission I would speak to Amend vents Nos. 5, 6 and 7, which are related. The first two, while primarily of a drifting

231
nature, remove some inflexibility from Clause 15 so as to give a wider power to the Court of Session to prescribe by Rules of Court times within which a notice under subsection (2) is to be given and a requirement under subsection (4) is to be intimated. The third Amendment is purely drafting. It removes a possible ambiguity from the word "prescribed" in paragraph (6)(c) of Clause 15. The word "prescribed" is used throughout Clause 15 to mean prescribed by Rules of Court made by the Court of Session, but in paragraph (6)(c) what the court is given power to do is to prescribe exceptions to requirements "laid down" in Clause 15, and not exceptions to requirements prescribed by the court itself. My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 2, leave out ("at") and insert ("within").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("require") in line 31 and insert—
("(4) Any party to whom information is furnished under subsection (3) of this section may, within such time as may be prescribed,").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 14, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("laid down").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 17 [Interpretation of Part III, and savings]:
LORD HUGHESmoved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"(5) The Clerk of any court having custody of any document shall, on the application of any person who wishes to rely, by virtue of section 10(2), section 11(2) or section 12(2) of this Act or any corresponding provision for the time being in force in any part of the United Kingdom outside Scotland, on the contents of that document in proceedings which he proposes to raise, or which are pending, in any court in the United Kingdom, and on payment by that person of such fee as may be prescribed by act of adjournal
232
or act of sederunt, as the case may be, made with the approval of the Treasury, issue to that person a copy of that document, or of the material part thereof, certified or otherwise authenticated by or on behalf of the court."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subsection which this Amendment proposes to introduce into Clause 17 is necessary to ensure that Clauses 10 to 12 work smoothly. It will be recalled that those clauses deal with the admissibility in subsequent civil proceedings of the findings of courts in earlier criminal and certain types of civil cases. The purpose of the new subsection to enable litigants or prospective litigants to obtain copies of the relevant documents relating to an earlier case from the clerks of court who have custody of them. The Lord President of the Court of Session has been consulted and is satisfied with the proposed new provision. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 22, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hughes.)
Schedule 1 [Modification of Succession (Scotland) Act, 1964 Consequential on Sections 1 and 2 of this Act]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 17, leave out paragraphs 3 to 7.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not agree with this Amendment hut, as the noble Lord has said, it is consequential on Amendment No. 3.

HOVERCRAFT BILL
5.17 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this Bill was given a very thorough examination in another place. It is primarily an enabling Bill, and we do have other business to get through to-day. I thought, therefore, it would be acceptable if I limited my remarks to a few general comments about the Bill, with an undertaking, of course, to try to answer any questions which may be posed to me.

233
First, it may be asked: why do we need the Bill? The need springs primarily from the present uncertainty about where hovercraft stand before the law. These vehicles are new. They can be amphibious; they combine some characteristics of a ship and some of an aircraft. In many ways they are neither ships nor aircraft. All this could cause difficulty in the courts. At present they are treated as if they were aircraft for purposes of safety, and are given "permits to fly". Though the system has worked so far, there could be doubt whether hovercraft properly can be called aircraft within the Civil Aviation Act of 1949. In this context it is relevant that the International Civil Aviation Organisation has chosen not to regard hovercraft as being aircraft. Clause 2, which deals with jurisdiction, is therefore required as a matter of some urgency.
I may also be asked why so much of the required regulations are left to be dealt with by Orders, and why Clause 1 gives such wide enabling powers. The answer—the acceptable answer, I hope —is that this new field of endeavour is so much in the development stage and offers so many divergent opportunities of development that the utmost flexibility is required. The regulations will be tailored to developing requirements. In some cases it will be possible to adapt existing enactments, such as the Civil Aviation Act and the Merchant Shipping Acts. But I am sure that the House will agree that in all cases it is advisable to provide for the maximum flexibility. If we had time I have no doubt that we could discuss at length the definition of the family of vehicles for which provision is made in this Bill, and indeed the title that it is proposed to give to it. The term "hovercraft" is not, to say the least, universally accepted by those who take a professional interest in this matter. "Air Cushion Vehicle", abbreviated to A.C.V., would probably be preferred by those who are involved and take a special interest in this field. Certainly in many ways it can technically be justified as the better generic term for the different variety of craft using the air cushion principle. All this I gather was the subject of a good deal of discussion, but the Government eventually came down in favour of the word hovercraft as one which the general public appreciated and which was most widely used.
234
Needless to say, there are high hopes of expansion of the hovercraft industry, and it is important that we should take the lead in framing special regulations. I hope that other countries will be encouraged to follow our lead, and I gather that there are some waiting to see how we propose tackling the problem of certification and regulation. I trust, therefore, that this Bill will be given a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
5.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lards, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for introducing this small but important Bill in such a clear and concise way. The very word "hovercraft" fills most of us with a sense of justifiable pride in this outstanding British invention which seems poised, as many of us believe, on the threshold of world success. But fewer of us notice how versatile this remarkable invention is proving, not only in its capacity as a passenger-carrying marine vehicle skimming the water between Southampton and the Isle of Wight or as a two-seater pleasure craft which is increasing in popularity month a by month; but also in its industrial capacity, in lifting pallets, in moving large oil storage tanks, and in the temporary damming of rivers. In its medical capacity, there is the hover-bed designed especially for badly-burned patients; and, finally, there is its capacity in the form of the hover-rail. To cover in one Bill all these multifarious uses, with the likelihood of further differing uses being discovered later on, was, I am sure, a daunting task for any Parliamentary draftsman. For this reason, I am sure that it is right that the Bill before us to-day does no more than to provide the framework upon which the body of future law covering hovercraft can be constructed, limb by limb, by means of Orders in Council under Clause 1.
The Bill, as the noble Lord said is an enabling Bill. Although I am sure that its wide powers will raise doubt in many people's minds, it should be supported because it gives the necessary flexibility required in a rapidly-changing new technological industry and will help surmount any legal obstacle in its path of progress. Having said that, my only

235
criticism concerns the extremely long time that this immensely energetic Government have taken to produce this simple legal framework for the industry. In 1965, we were promised that legislation was "shortly to be introduced". In 1966, we were told that it was now imminent. Now, two years later, it is born. I think it is fair to comment that this has been a rather long gestation.
The only possible reason, as I see it, for this delay is the immensely varied list of previous Acts to which this Bill will refer: the Dockyard Port Regulation Act 1865; the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928; the Explosives Act 1875; the British Nationality Act 1948; the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949; the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962; and last, but by no means least, the Docking and Nicking of Horses Act 1949. Perhaps the noble Lord when he comes to reply could enlighten us as to what relationship this last Act has to the Hovercraft Bill.
My Lords, the necessity for this fairly urgent hovercraft legislation was demonstrated in another place during the Second Reading debate when, despite the fact that the Sea Speed and Hover Travel companies have been operating for the past three years and carrying over 100,000 passengers a year, as recently as May 16 the Government's view was:
"We are not totally sure that they are legally covered in operating at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 16 / 5 / 68, col. 1480.]
With this in mind, I think it fair to ask the noble Lord this question. How soon do the Government expect to introduce an Order covering the operating of these services? Is it to be in this Session, or in the next Session, or next year?
Another factor came to light in another place. It was the difficulty that the Government were having in deciding which body should be responsible for the certification procedure. As I understand it, a Working Party has already been set up by the Government and is, in fact, examining this question at the moment. Should it still be the Air Registration Board (to which I should like to pay tribute for the work it has done in the past), or should it be Lloyd's Register of Shipping or should it be yet another new body? Perhaps the noble Lord could
236
indicate later how soon he expects a decision on this issue to be announced. This Bill is so wide that it gives those of us who are interested in many aspects of the matter the opportunity to seek information from the Government. I hope that there will be others besides myself and my noble friend Lord Bessborough. I hope that Lord Granville of Eye will also take part.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his offer to reply to questions. I should like first to ask about the progress of the hover-bed, although I know that this does not come within this Bill, for it is not strictly a vehicle. I am a little concerned about the hover-bed, because in our short debate last March the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, failed to reply to a question on this subject. I was even more concerned to see that in another place during the same debate the Government spokesman, when winding up, stated in reference to the honourable Member for Eastleigh:
"He spoke of the air cushion bed. I have not heard of that before …—[col. 1517.]
I think that is rather an extraordinary remark from any Government spokesman speaking on a Bill of this sort. As I understand it, there have been various trials in hospitals which have demonstrated its effectiveness in use for badly-burned patients. I should like to ask the noble Lord if he can say whether it may shortly be installed for general or limited use in hospitals and what interest has been aroused by other countries abroad.
The second question comes within the scope of the Bill. It is this. What is the latest news of hover-rail? I believe I am right in saying that the N.R.D.C. has awarded a £2 million contract for the development of the hover-rail and that there is a new company now set up at Cambridge. Could the noble Lord tell us how long this development programme is likely to last before a commercial judgment on its future can be evaluated? Is it intended that there should be any collaboration with other countries on the development that will take place?
The third question I should like to put to the noble Lord is this. Can he tell us what export figures have been achieved by the British Hovercraft Corporation with their S.R.N.5 and their S.R.N.6?

237
Also, assuming the operating costs of the S.R.N.4 prove economic—and I am sure the eyes of the world are on this aspect at the moment—what is the estimate of the potential world market for this craft? While speaking on the S.R.N.4, I should like to mention to the noble Lord the concern felt at the way the British Railways Board are prepared to purchase and operate only one craft at present. It does not seem to present a good picture of confidence, nor a picture of enthusiasm, nor a picture of reliable service. Yet here is the time, on August 1, when this magnificent new craft is about to be launched and I do not think that the British Hovercraft Corporation have been given the support they deserve by a nationalised transport undertaking.
One of the many aspects of the hovercraft industry, which I consider has a very great future, is the development of the small pleasure hovercraft which will seat two, four or perhaps six passengers. As the noble Lord will know, there are already quite a number of British companies specialising in this field with their eyes not only or the home market but on potential markets abroad. There are also a number of clubs which have been formed and I believe that this legislation, or rather the legislation which is to follow within the framework of this legislation, as regards matters of registration, safety of construction and noise, will be a very useful guide-line to manufacturers and customers and will create an added confidence in this new form of pleasure craft.
I would conclude, my Lords, by repeating my welcome to this Bill. Despite its permissive character, I believe it is the only practical way to allow the necessary flexibility of legislation to cover a very rapidly changing technology. I do not think that it is a form of legislation that many of us would wish to see often, but I believe it suits the purpose of hovercraft development. It is, of course, only stage one of legislation for hovercraft and I hope it will not be too long before stage two is introduced by Orders. I believe that the Bill is an important landmark for the industry and in the short history of the hovercraft. For those who believe that only the tip of success in respect of hovercraft manufacture has been shown, and that there is much more
238
to come, the Bill is a welcome recognition of the importance of the industry, and for that reason I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
5.32 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked me to support this Bill, and I must say that I am very glad he has gone over the subject so very carefully. When I get on my feet no one knows when I am going to stop, but now it is quite simple. We have this afternoon been away among the bog myrtles, the crofts, and the coulees, and I feel that the time of the House has been delayed. The noble Earl has covered the whole subject completely, and you will be glad to hear that I feel there is very little that I can add. I am a member of the Inventors' Society: I myself try my hand at inventing, and I appreciate that this is a British invention. Legalising it in this Bill will mean that we are supporting an invention which has been copied all over the world and, so to speak, putting the trade mark of British goods on it, which I consider is a step forward.
My Lords, one aspect was not mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, but is important. The spread of bracken throughout the world is very serious, and all sorts of ways have been tried to stop it in out-of-the-way places where the loss of grazing land in some countries is very considerable. Attempts have been made to destroy the bracken by means of spraying machines attached to helicopters; but the helicopter is not altogether suitable because in some of the valleys "choppers" have crashed. The f over-craft may well play an important part in the future in the disposal of bracken—at least I hope so. I am glad that we made the hovercraft a "lady" and have made, or are going to make it, a recognised mechanical invention. It will be of help to everybody like the tractor, the train and the teacup.
5.35 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the importance of encouraging exports in this field. It so happens that this year I have travelled to Vancouver, in one direction, and to Irkutsk, in the other. Over hose vast frozen wastes, with enormous rivers

239
wandering across them, it seems to me that the hovercraft must have an enormous future. It is not dependent only on open water on which to travel: it can travel equally well over frozen, or partly frozen, ice or snow, or over reasonably flat land. I should like to see a big export market develop and every facility given by the Government to the companies concerned to try the craft out in different circumstances.
In this connection it is important that the permissive powers given in this type of legislation should be used in order to assist the companies concerned and that they should be as little restrictive as possible. Such restrictions as are applied should be only those that are vital to the safety of life, and perhaps the prevention of excessive noise in our country. I hope that we shall not by the regulations we issue under this legislation discourage prospective buyers from abroad from trying out this type of craft because they think it has turned out, for some reason, to be objectionable or dangerous in our country. I should be grateful if the Government could give us an assurance about how these permissive powers will be used.
5.36 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am bound to say that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, took my invitation to ask questions very literally. I will do my best to answer those that he put to me, but if I cannot give him all the answers I will try to find out and write to him later. I am very grateful for his general welcome to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, asked for an assurance that the enabling powers which the Bill will provide will not be used in any restrictive sense. I think I can give the noble Lord that assurance. Whatever is done will be done after the fullest consultation with both the manufacturers and users. I think that there is a happy relationship with the representatives of these people now and I am certain that eventually the Orders which are brought forward will be designed to enable the maximum development of this invention. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strange, for his comments. The noble Lord is an inventor of note, and I thought he was most generous in the way he referred to this invention by a rival in his field.
240
On the question of the regulations, I should say that at the moment the Hovercraft Consultative Committee, set up to advise on the Orders and regulations, and representative of the interests to which I have referred, are now working on the Orders. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, it is not possible to give exactly the time table for the laying of Orders, but it may well be that the first one will be brought in quite expeditiously. Recognising the need to limit their restrictive capacity and to ensure their helpful nature, a little extra time spent on this task might well be advisable.
The noble Earl asked me about the relation to this Bill and the hovercraft to the Docking and Nicking of Horses Act, 1949. I am not absolutely certain, but as I follow it, it would seem that horses which have been dealt with in this way cannot, without permission, at the present time, be brought into this country by either aircraft or ship. It would seem that there is a possible loophole and they might he brought in by hovercraft. Similarly, as I understand it, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act makes it illegal to bring unlawful Commonwealth immigrants into this country by aircraft or ship, but under the present law the captain of a hovercraft would not be caught by the Act. Under this Bill the position will be dealt with.
The noble Earl asked me about the hover-bed. In fact, he gave a very reasonable explanation of this bed. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Kennet was not aware of all those details. I should like to say to the noble Earl that on some future occasion, when he has charge of a Department, that it will be more than likely that there will be some technical development with which he will not be completely familiar. The hover-bed has been devised for the treatment of people suffering from severe burns. Air is pumped into the bed from a mobile unit. The patient is laid on the pockets, which open away underneath, forming a perfect seal along the side of the body, so that the patient is left floating on a cushion of warm, sterile air.
The N.R.D.C. are now sponsoring the construction of a two-bed clinical trial unit by Allen and Hanbury Surgical Engineering Limited, and at this stage of development the beds are being used

241
under the strictest of surveillance and I think that it is a little premature to discuss its full application. We must wait and see what is learned in this experiment. Having said all that, I must now tell the noble Earl that the hover-bed is one form of the air cushion principle which is not covered by this Bill. It is not a vehicle, and we are here talking about vehicles. But I hope that this information will be useful to him.
I was asked about the position of exports. Of the 47 or so S.R.N. 5 and 6, built or under construction at B.H.C., 26 have been or are being supplied to overseas orders. The B.H.C. exports to date, I gather, are worth about £5 million. Hovermarine have received three firm orders for the H.M.2 from overseas customers and have a further ten unconfirmed foreign orders. This firm estimates that about 90 per cent. of their output will be for overseas requirements. The noble Earl asked about an estimate of the world market. I have no doubt that B.H.C. have made a survey. I am not aware of the figures they have come up with, and to some extent the figures cannot be definite, certainly not final, because a good deal of the activity at the present time is in persuading parts of the world that they are a market for this new form of transport.
The noble Earl asked about the position of the Working Party which has been set up to consider the certification and registration of this new vehicle. I understand that there were discussions at the Board of Trade between the Air Registration Board and Lloyd's about the way in which registration and certification will be dealt with. Both these important and experienced bodies are interested in this, particularly A.R.B. who have carried responsibility so far. I understand that both organisations are now considering what has been said and will submit proposals, and further discussions will take place.
With regard to certification of small sporting hovercraft, small craft of this sort will presumably have safety requirements, but just as we have contrived in relation to yachts and gliders, for example, to encourage amateur builders and operators the same principle will be applied to sporting hovercraft. The noble Earl asked about the
242
tracked hovercraft experiment about to take place at Cambridge. The position is that the N.R.D.C. have formed a subsidiary company, Tracked Hovercraft Limited, to continue the development work on the hover-train. It is expected that in about two years they will have a manned tracked hovercraft motel in operation. Initially they are building a test track of about five miles, to be extended later to ten or twenty miles. The commercial application, of course, will depend on the lessons learned from that experiment. I think that I have dealt with all the questions, but if not, having read what the noble Earl said, I will endeavour to send him the answers. In the meantime, I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IRON AND STEEL (COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES) REGULATIONS 1968
5.46 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Iron and Steel (Compensation to Employees) Regulations 1968, which were laid before the House on July 1, 1968, be approved. These regulations give effect to the duty imposed on the Minister by Section 41 of the Iron and Steel Act 1949, as revived and amended by the Iron and Steel Act 1967. They require the British Steel Corporation to pay compensation to those staff, or former staff, of the Iron and Steel Board and the nationalised companies who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of nationalisation or subsequent organisational changes giving effect to conclusions reported by the Corporation to the Minister in a report on organisation, or to a direction by the Minister to the Corporation on organisation. The pattern of compensation embodied in them is based on the pattern for statutory redundancy which, with minor modification called for as a result of changing circumstances, has been applied by successive Governments over the last twenty years. The most recent example is the Harbour Reorganisation (Compensation to Employees) Regulations 1967.

243
As the Act requires, we have consulted the British Steel Corporation and the trade unions in the preparation of these regulations. The regulations will have effect from July 28, 1967—that is to say, vesting day. If the House wishes, I will gladly give a fuller explanation of the regulations. But as they give effect to well-established policy followed by Governments of both Parties, what I have said may be sufficient; and it might be better if, with permission, I were to speak again in reply to any points which noble Lords may wish to raise.
Moved, That the Draft Iron and Steel (Compensation to Employees) Regulations 1968, laid before the House on July 1, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL
5.48 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment made instead of one of the Lords Amendments, the Commons consequential Amendment, and the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments he now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment made instead of one of the Lords Amendments, the Commons consequential Amendment, and the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, with permission of the House, I should like to say a word or two on this Motion before we go on to the actual Amendments. We will, of course, accept this Motion in a moment and consider these Amendments, as we always try to help Her Majesty's Government with the passage of their business; but they do try us very sorely. Here we have a further example of what I can only describe as the mismanagement that has occurred over and over again on this particular Bill. In almost all respects it is a wholly admirable Bill, but there is one matter which has given us trouble right from the beginning.
We shall have an opportunity of discussing this on its merits when we discuss
244
Amendment No. 2, printed under the heading, "After Clause 58", but I should like to spend a moment criticising the way in which this issue has been handled. It makes it very difficult for us to believe that the Government have been acting in good faith in this matter. The clause which has caused the trouble all along, and is still causing trouble, is the one dealing with drugs patents. There was nothing in the Bill about this when it was presented to the other place for Second Reading. Nothing was said about it in all of the 12 days in which it was in Committee in the other place. It was tabled for the first time in the other place over the week-end before the Monday on which it was actually discussed, and then it was forced through on a Division.
Here we made it clear on Second Reading how much we disliked this particular clause, and we went into consultation with the industry about it. At the last minute, just before our Committee stage, an entirely fresh clause was tabled by the Government. Lastly, in our Committee stage we had a confusing debate on the clause that had originally been tabled on Report stage in the other place, on an entirely fresh clause which we tabled after consultation with industry, a second Government clause tabled just before our Committee stage, and a proposal from the Liberal benches that all the clauses should be deleted. It was not, therefore, surprising that we did not have a very good debate in Committee. And on Report we deleted the clause. I am glad to say that that action has been accepted by the Government. But this last week Her Majesty's Government tabled yet another clause. It was dealt with early on Thursday morning of last week, and the first that we knew about its being considered in this House was when a Motion to debate it to-day appeared on the Order Paper yesterday. It appears that this was done without any consultation through the usual channels.
Unlike Members in the other place, here we are not full-time professionals, paid to be here all the time. It takes us a little time to arrange our other affairs, in which we are all engaged, and on this particular occasion my noble friend Lord Newton was unable to rearrange his affairs to be here. In any case, it has not been possible for any of us interested

245
in this Bill to have any consultation with interests outside the House, who are very much concerned with this clause. And if that was not bad enough, we now know—which we did not know when we had this Bill before us on an earlier occasion—that the substance of this clause was never a product of deliberate Government decision, following consultation with industry. It was—and two honourable Members of the Party opposite confessed this quite blatantly on the Report stage (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 10/7/68; col. 659)—inserted as a result of Party pressure on the Minister, to which he succumbed. I think your Lordships will agree to consider these Amendments now, but I hope your Lordships will agree, also, in the light of what I have said, that it was my first duty to protest.
5.54 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord feels that this is the result of some deliberate machinations on the pan of Her Majesty's Government. The facts as he described them, of course, sound extraordinarily sinister, but I would point out that it is not unusual (I have checked this) for Bills to come here so quickly from another place, or indeed Amendments of this kind. I am empowered to make a very full apology for the fact that consultations did not take place through the usual channels.
So far as the question of the Committee stage in this House is concerned, I agree with the noble Lord that it was a complicated and confused debate. Quite frankly, I am not used to coping with introducing an Amendment and at the same time replying to an Amendment which leaves out the thing which you are trying to put in. I must repeat—and I think I said this on each stage of the Bill—that on Second Reading I mentioned that there 'was to be a new clause, and it is not quite true to say that it was an entirely different clause. The substance of this clause was not changed, and has not been changed throughout.
I am sorry that the noble Lord feels the way he does. I can only assure him that the Government feel that it had the opportunity of an airing in another place, although perhaps not as fully as on other occasions. I hope the noble Lord will accept my assurance that this is not a
246
matter of great sinister content. I feel that much of this arises from the pressure of business, and, if I dare seek the sympathy of the noble Lord, this falls as hardly on junior Ministers as on anyone else.
COMMONS AMENDMENT TO THE BILL INSTEAD OF WORDS LEFT OUT BY ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE BILL, AND COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (93) as first printed for the Lords. Commons Amendments are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 1]
Leave out Clause 25.
The Commons agreed to this Amendment and made the following Amendment to the Bill instead of the words left out:
[No. 2]
After Clause 58, Insert the following new Clause:
Extension of power of user by Crown of patented invention to user for certain health services.
".—(1) The powers exercisable in relation to a patented invention under section 46 of the Patents Act 1949 by a government department or a person authorised by a government department shall include power to make, use, exercise and vend the invention for the production or supply of drugs and medicines required for the provision of pharmaceutical services, general medical services or general dental services, and prescribed for the per poses of this section by regulations made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State acting jointly; and any reference in that section or in section 47 or 48 of the Patents Act 1949 to the services of the Crown shall be construed accordingly.
(2) In the foregoing subsection references to pharmaceutical services, general medical services and general dental services shall be construed as referring to services of those respective kinds under Part IV of the National Health Service Act 1946, Part IV of the National Health Service (Scotland) Ac, 1947 or the corresponding provisions of the law in force in Northern Ireland or the Isle of Man.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) above to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) This section shall extend to the Isle of Man."
The Commons made the following Consequential Amendment to the Bill—
[No. 3]
Clause 78, page 55, line 31, after ("Act") insert ("except section (Extension of power of user by Crown of patented invention to user for certain health services) thereof.")
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, which they have made to the Bill instead of the words left out by the Lords Amendment No. 1. I will not repeat the whole of the arguments, which were put very fully before your Lordships when we discussed the original clause. It will be quite obvious to your Lordships who have studied the Bill that this new clause reinstates in principle Clause 25, which was left out by this House on Report stage, and extends to the general medical, dental and pharmaceutical services the provisions related to Crown use of patented drugs and medicines, which under Section 46 of the Patents Act already apply to the hospital services.
My Lords, I hope I have established the fact that there would never be any sudden or arbitrary use of this power, which is essentially one of last resort. Therefore Her Majesty's Government have tried to find a practical way of reinforcing this assurance and the new clause limits the use of Section 46 for the purposes of the services covered by the clause, to drugs and medicines which have been specified by Regulations. This provision will not only give due warning (and this is a point that was stressed by many noble Lords in earlier debates) should it ever be necessary to invoke these powers, but it will also give Parliament an opportunity of discussing and approving their use in a particular case.
I think I am correct in saying that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, sought to do something of this kind: and as I recall he said that he was putting forward Amendments which were a genuine attempt to make it possible for this to be included in the Bill. The concession which has been made by the Minister will, I hope, be seen by your Lordships as evidence of the Government's intention to make use of this power only if we have to, responsibly and with due opportunity for Parliamentary debate.
The clause is one part of a set of proposals which was recently explained to the House and which will beyond dispute provide a moderate and comprehensive settlement which is both fair to the industry and to the taxpayer. It is neccesary for
248
Ministers to have an effective and expeditious power of last resort, because normal competitive conditions do not exist for the supply of drugs to these services, and it is on Ministers that the duty mainly rests to ensure that proper value is obtained for the expenditure of public funds. Bearing in mind the previous debates, this is a concession on the part of the Minister and an attempt to provide a compromise. I hope that your Lordships will accept it in this form.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the Amendment No. 2 which they have made to the Bill instead of the words left out by the Lords Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is really disarming when one has a bone to pick with the Government, to be faced with one of these charming noble Baronesses. I cannot say that we, on this side of the House, welcome even this new clause but it is undoubtedly a considerable improvement on the previous attempts, particularly because of the inclusion of what now stands as subsection (3), which will have the effect of ensuring that this power cannot be used without Parliament's having an opportunity to debate it. This is, of course, an extremely late stage at which to introduce new material, and from what I was just saying I think the House will feel that this particular matter has not been introduced into legislation in a way that is at all satisfactory. If it works—and we hope it will—it will be very much by good luck and certainly not by good management.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has tried to persuade us to accept this Amendment by the Commons—the new clause. In this House we rejected Clause 25 on a Motion moved by myself and supported widely on various Benches in this House. It went down to the other place, and they, by only three votes, failed to agree with us. That was very nearly a victory in those circumstances. In this Parliament I do not know when there has been such a close thing as a Government victory with only three votes, and that on a Government measure. That in itself is one indication of the justification that we had for moving

249
our Amendment to leave out Clause 25. Further, the fact that the Government have gone some way—and I think quite an important way—to meet us in the Amendment we are now discussing is another indication that we were right.
The House of Lords is often criticised these days. Not long ago the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, said the House of Lords was a mountain which only prod iced mice. That is completely untrue; very often we produce some very important matters in this House, and this is one of them. This is a case in point. It affects an important, exciting and new industry, and furthermore it affects by implication a large segment of British industry, and I am grateful to the Government for meeting us in the way they have. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I would not say that I am entirely satisfied. I am not. It would be better to leave out the clause altogether, but the Government have gone some way to meet us, and we are grateful.
In future this "measure of last resort", as the noble Baroness calls it, is fortified by the fact that there will have to be a Statutory Instrument which is capable of annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament. I presume that this in fact means "either House". It does not mean that if a case comes up, as one did quite recently—although on that occasion I voted for the Government—it will be said, as it was then said, that we had abandoned our powers on Resolutions. I hope this will not be the fact. I do not think there is much good in putting in an Act of Parliament something giving us power at this late stage in our history to annul a Resolution unless we are going to be able to do it. It would be far better to "come clean" and not to put it in at all. So I am assuming that now, in this year of grace 1968, if the Government put in a condition—and it has been stated by the noble Baroness to be a very important condition; that is to say, that a Resolution can be annulled by either House of Parliament—this House can take advantage of that provision if, in its wisdom, it so desires.
I see that this cause extends to the Isle of Man. I do not quite know why the Isle of Man is mentioned here. Surely it should be mentioned elsewhere or not at
250
all. Why should this very doubtful privilege and benefit be conferred on the Isle of Man? If the noble Lord, Lord Strange, were here I think he might be able to tell us what the Tynwald thinks about it.
NOBLE LORDS: He is here.
LORD OGMORE: The noble Lord, Lord Strange, is of course a descendant of the ancient Kings of Man and he will be able to tell us what the Tynwald thinks of this, because, as I understand it, the Isle of Man is one of the federal parts of this country. We have a Federal Parliament and not a unitary Parliament. We have powers over the subordinate Parliament of Northern Ireland; I suppose we have some powers over the subordinate Parliaments of Guernsey and Jersey, and obviously considerable powers over the Tynwald, the Parliament of the Isle of Man. As your Lordships know, I moved a Bill in this House on January 30 to provide for a subordinate domestic Parliament for Wales, and it intrigues me greatly to find that the Isle of Man is still in some way subject to the powers of the Federal Parliament at Westminster. With those few words, I have no strong objection to this Amendment—or no sufficient objection which impels me to carry this to a Division—and I am grateful to the Government for making it.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has just said about this clause being an advance upon the one taken out of the Bill by this House. At the same time I should have liked to see it go further and, as I suggested in the previous debate, a measure of compensation settled by an independent body might have been a better way of approaching the matter. On the other hand, with the Report of the Banks Committee still to be published, it is conceivable that there may be some necessity for revising legislation when we see that Report. Meanwhile, I feel certain that the House will be happy to accept this advance on what was in the original Bill.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I feel I should answer the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, because apparently something was being said about our "Legs"! As the noble Lord knows, it belonged to my family and it was sold to the Queen and the Royal

251
Crown, under slight duress, because they did not approve of the way we were smuggling, and it has been run, in a way, by the British Government ever since. But the oldest Parliament in the world has continued there, and of course we fly the Queen's flag as Sovereign—the Manx flag with the Legs—rather than the Union Jack, which is the Government flag.
I must say for the Isle of Man that it had, per head of the population, more freely enlisted men in both Wars than any other colony in the British Empire, which shows that we are fantastically loyal to ourselves and most other people. We do not stand (or sit) with a cup out, but if anything drops into it we say "Thank you" very nicely.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, may I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Strange, for his, as always, fascinating account of the Isle of Man. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that Northern Ireland requested to be included in this, so one can only assume that the Isle of Man equally requested it. I am quite sure that even a Socialist Government would hesitate to extend any legislation where it was not wanted—
LORD STONHAM: Particularly a Socialist Government.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords —if it had not been requested.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ferrier, Lord Ogmore and Lord Sandford, for accepting the fact that the Government have gone some way to meet their point. Also, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, in regard to the Banks Committee. We are, of course, awaiting an opportunity to debate their recommendations.
I should like to repeat that it is in the interests of the Minister of Health to have a strong and healthy pharmaceutical industry, and that there would never be an attempt to drive a wedge between the industry and the Minister. I think I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that if an Act of Parliament in fact says "either House of Parliament" this must mean just that. I am very glad that all noble Lords have accepted the genuine
252
attempt to meet the point made by your Lordships.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(Baroness Phillips.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 4]
After Clause 30, insert the following new Clause:
Certificates for exemption from prescription charges
"—(1) Regulations made under section 38(3) of the 1946 Act (which authorises regulations providing for the making and recover}, of charges in respect of pharmaceutical services) and regulations made under section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 1952 (which authorises regulations providing for the making and recovery of charges in respect of the supply, as part of hospital and specialist services under Part II of the 1946 Act, of drugs, medicines and appliances) may each provide for the grant, on payment of such sums as may be so prescribed, of certificates conferring on the persons to whom the certificates are granted exemption from charges otherwise exigible under the regulations in respect of drugs, medicine and appliances supplied during such period as may be so prescribed: and different sums may be so prescribed in relation to different periods.
(2) This section shall have effect in Scotland as if, for the references therein to section 38(3) and Part TI of the 1946 Act, there were substituted references respectively to section 40(3) and Part II of the 1947 Act."
The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment there-to:—
[No. 5]
Line 9, leave out ("so") and insert ("thereby")
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5 to the Lords Amendment No. 4. This is in fact a drafting Amendment, substituting the use of the word "thereby" for the word "so". My own explanation of this is that "so" refers to the past and "thereby" in fact refers to the present and to the future.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I will not attempt to enter into the discussion of whether this makes any difference at all to the Bill because I am not at all clear that it does. But I should like to say that we are happy to see this clause about prescription charges in the Bill. I think one could say in passing that if the Government had been able to control their reflex actions rather more carefully when they first came into power, and had retained prescription charges, they would have saved themselves a great deal of trouble.

BRITISH STANDARD TIME BILL [H.L.]
6.12 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to the British Standard Time Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Stonham.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 52 as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1 and 2]
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Commencement and duration
"(1) This Act shall come into force on 27th October 1968.
(2) Sections 1 to 3 of this Act shall expire at two o'clock Greenwich mean time, in the morning of 31st October 1971 unless made permanent under subsection (3) below; and the provisions of Schedule (Provisions contingent on Expiration of Sections 1 to 3) to this Act shall have effect in the event of the expiration of those sections.
(3) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the said sections 1 to 3 shall have permanent effect; and any such Order may repeal subsection (2) above and the said Schedule (Provisions contingent on Expiration of Sections 1 to 3).
(4) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under subsection (3) above unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament passed before the end of the year 1970."
Clause 4, page 2, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. The Bill as it left your Lordships' House made the decision to institute British Standard Time as from October 27 of this year irreversible. The new clause added in another place provides for the change to be introduced in the first place for an experimental period of three years. The Government recognise that, whatever opinions may be expressed, or deductions made, about the effect of the new time system on different parts of the country or sections of the community, the present arrangements must be largely speculative. They think it right, therefore, that before finally committing themselves to the new system it should be tested in the light of actual experience; and this is what the new clause will achieve. It will thus be possible to test whether all the advantages seen in the new system—in the way of improved contacts with continental countries, coordination of international transport schedules, increased opportunity for leisure time activities, reduction in road accidents and so on—are as great as has been expected; and, contrariwise, whether the disadvantages, for it stance to the agricultural and constructional industries, and particularly in Scotland, prove as serious as opponents of the Bill have claimed that they will be.
Subsection (1) of the new clause provides, like Clause 4 of the Bill as first introduced, for the measure to come into operation on October 27 next; but subsection (2) goes on to provide that it shall automatically expire at 2 o'clock Greenwich Mean Time on October 31, 1971, unless made permanent by Order in Council made under the provisions that follow. It also paves the way to the new Schedule (Amendment No. 3), which deals with the provisions contingent on its expiry, should that be allowed to occur.
Under subsection (3) the substantive provisions contained in Clauses 1 to 3 may be given permanent effect by an Order in Council approved in drift by Affirmative Resolution passed by both Houses, in which case both subsection (2) and the Schedule may be repealed by the Order as having no further relevance. Subsection (4) requires that any such

255
Affirmative Resolution must be passed before the end of 1970. The effect, therefore, is this: that the decision whether or not to make British Standard Time permanent is to be taken after the experience of two winters—the coming winter and that of 1969–70—but that if the decision is not to do so but to allow the measure to lapse, a further winter will pass under British Standard Time before the actual date of expiry in October, 1971.
The Government are convinced that the experience of two winters is essential if the test is to be a proper one. There might be something to be said for prolonging the experiment, but in our view nothing for shortening it. It should be self-evident that a reliable assessment could not be made from a single winter either of public reaction or of the effects on industry, commerce, education and other activities. The coming winter may be either unusually mild or unusually severe, and that will certainly influence people's reactions. In some industries—such as the constructional industries—there may be need for adjustments to be made to the new time system, and it may also be necessary in certain areas to rearrange school hours. If the test were to be for a single winter only, and it were known that British Standard Time might not survive for more than two winters, there would be less incentive for these adjustments to be undertaken; and if they were undertaken their consequences and effectiveness could not be expected fully to show themselves on the experience of a single season. At the end we should be left still uncertain whether the decision taken—be it for the continuance of British Standard Time or its abandonment—was the right one. Something might be learned, but not nearly enough.
It will be necessary, in the light of the experience obtained from this trial, to make a thorough survey of representative opinion. Such a survey could not be undertaken before the spring of 1970 and could not at best be completed in time for reversion to Greenwich Mean Time (supposing that was the conclusion) to be effected in the following winter. Adequate notice would have to be given of such a change to the public in general, and to special interests, such as those
256
concerned with the printing of timetables or with negotiation of hours of work where these had been changed on account of British Standard Time. Moreover, the electricity boards must have proper notice to adjust tariffs and meters dealing with off-peak electricity supplies. While, therefore, the inquiries could be completed towards the end of 1970, any change resulting from them would have to be deferred until the winter of 1971–72.
Amendment No. 2 is to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 4 as the Bill was passed by your Lordships' House. That subsection provides that the Bill should come into force on October 27, 1968. This provision is now in subsection (1) of the new clause, and the omission of subsection (2) of Clause 4 is consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: After the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had moved the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House almost eight months ago I said:
"My only regret about his speech was that he did not suggest at all that the Government were approaching this change in an experimental frame of mind. I should have thought that was necessary."
I went on to say:
"I personally think this Bill should be supported, but as an experiment and not as an unalterable change in our social arrangements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23/11/67, c. 1188.]
That suggestion of mine was widely supported in different quarters of the House: the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, I remember, backed me up on it. But we were unable to have any effect on the Government.
In winding up the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said:
"With regard to the very important point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, he will know that if we had any doubts about this legislation or any thoughts that in a year or two we should have to come back to the House and say 'Let us cancel it', we should not be bringing legislation forward now."—(Col. 1216.)
Why the noble Lord thought fit to ascribe to me the power to know or understand this Government's mental processes I have no idea. I realise, of course, that

257
he was faithfully carrying out on that occasion the Home Secretary's policy and that he had no authority to make any concession. For my part, I warmly welcome the fact that in another place the Government yielded to the arguments which had been initiated here and were repeated there, that this Bill must be experimental.
I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Stonham feels that this represented disrespect by the Government, but I fear that what he was instructed to say on that occasion has subsequently been thrown over by the Government. Now we have these Amendments, which I am sure are an improvement to the Bill. I am also sure that they will be widely welcomed in your Lordships' House, because I do not remember any noble Lord, in any part of the House, arguing, either on that occasion or during subsequent stages of the Bill, that this change must remain for all the time and that it must never be reconsidered.
In another place the Government have now yielded, and have agreed that after two years it should be reconsidered in the light of experience, and these Amendments will ensure that the new plan can be brought to an end, and indeed will be brought to an end, after three years unless Parliament resolves otherwise. I do not venture to prophesy what will happen, but I think it is thoroughly sensible and thoroughly acceptable that we can now go into this plan of dark winter mornings and light winter evenings knowing that we are not unalterably committed to it, and that the Government will no doubt pay attention to public reactions and to the doubts expressed by all kinds of people who are affected before a final decision is taken as to whether or not to bring forward an Order under subsection (3) of this new clause.
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for teasing him a little about this, but I could not resist it. I think that in fact what has been said in another place has carried out the unanimous views of your Lordships' House—unanimous bar one—on the earlier stages of the Bill.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, having been in a measure responsible for dividing the House on Second Reading, it would be uncharitable of me not to
258
accept that this is a very considerable advance on the Bill as it was first presented to us. I am certain it is right that the Government should have accepted Lord Brooke's suggestion that the change should be for a trial period, a id the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has clearly stated that the proposed period is the minimum required for a satisfactory trial. There will be various roughnesses in it concerning off-peak tariffs whit I will have to be straightened out, and the problem of school hours will have to be tackled. I do not think the development will be acceptable in Northern Scotland but, as I said earlier, it would be uncharitable not to accept that this is an advance, and I look forward with great interest—not without a feeling that I may be wrong—that this may be a permanent part of our lives in the North, though doubt it.
LORD STONHAM: My Lord, this demonstrates very clearly three things. First it shows that the words of the noble Lord, Lord. Brooke of Cumnor, have the power to reverberate long after the sound of them has died or the ink has dried on the paper. Secondly it demonstrates beyond peradventure the reasonableness of the Government and the fact that they are prepared to consider these views, and that they do not, as is sometimes alleged, ride roughshod over public opinion and fail to listen to it. Thirdly, if I may say so, it demonstrates also the fact that the views of noble Lords here are communicated. I may say that they are very carefully considered, and it may interest the noble Lord to know that I was in full agreement with this decision, and in fact decided it long before it was considered in another place. So he may take it that I, too, am well satisfied, and also that I have no doubt at all that before the expiry of three years—and I insisted on three years—we shall get even the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, saying:" I was wrong, brother. We should continue this."
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, as another of the original protesters against this Bill, I should like to express my appreciation of this Amendment. There is one feature which gives me special pleasure, and I think it may give pleasure to others as well. I notice that if it is decided to drop

259
British Standard Time, this will happen at 3 o'clock on the morning of October 31, 1971, by British Standard Time. I am rather charmed to notice that in the wording of the Bill, looking forward to that moment even at three years' range, it refers to 2 o'clock in the morning, Greenwich Mean Time.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 3]
After Clause 4. insert the following new schedule:
"PROVISIONS CONTINGENT ON EXPIRATION OF SECTIONS 1 TO 3
1. Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act 1889 (effect of repeals) shall apply, in the event of the expiration of sections 1 to 3 of this Act, as if those sections had ben repealed by another Act.
2. In the event of the expiration of the said sections 1 to 3, the enactments repealed by this Act shall, subject to paragraph 3 below, thereupon revive; but if other provision is made by law of the States of Jersey or of Guernsey or by an Act of Tynwald, the Summer Time Acts 1922 to 1947 as revived by this paragraph shall not apply to the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Bailiwick Guernsey or the Isle of Man, as the case may be.
3. Section 1(2) of the Summer Time Act 1925 (which altered the period of summer time) shall not revive by virtue of paragraph 2 above in any event; and if the other provisions of the Summer Time Acts 1922 to 1947 so revive, they shall have effect subject to the modification that in section 3(1) of the Summer Time Act 1922 (which defines the period of summer time)—

(a) for the word 'April', in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word 'March'; and

(b) for the words from 'following' (where that word last occurs) onwards there shall be substituted the words 'following the fourth Saturday in October'."

6.28 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. This is a new Schedule which provides for the contingency that Sections 1 to 3 will be allowed to expire in October, 1971, and that the repealed Statutes (in particular the Statutes (Definition of Time) Act 1880 and the Summer Time Acts 1922 and 1947) will thereupon revive.
The first two paragraphs are largely procedural, but the third introduces an important change because it provides for
260
the Summer Time Acts to revive not as they are now but with an extension of the basic period of summer time (that is, the period which will apply subject to any variations made by Order in Council) by four weeks in the spring and three in the autumn. I recollect that this was one of the suggestions made as an alternative to permanent British Standard Time.
Paragraph 1 of the Schedule, which applies Section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act 1889 to the expiry of Sections 1 to 3 of this measure as though they had been repealed by another enactment, is procedural only. The main effect of it will be to ensure that the change back to Greenwich Mean Time will not affect retrospectively anything done before the change when the time when this was done is material.
Paragraph 2 provides for the revival of the repealed Statutes and deals with the effect of this in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Both are interested parties. It provides that the revival shall not have effect in any of these territories which has meanwhile enacted its own legislation, a right recognised in Clause 3. Thus, if during the period that British Standard Time is in force any of the territories should itself choose to adopt it permanently the reversion to Greenwich Mean Time by Great Britain will not overrule that decision. This is an unlikely contingency, but needs formally to be provided for, since the subject is within the legislative competence of the territories.
The really significant provision of the new Schedule is in paragraph 3. At present the period of summer time laid down in the Act of 1922, as amended by that of 1925, runs from the day following the third Saturday in April until the day following the first Saturday in October—some five and a half months in all. The 1947 Act, however, allows this period to be varied in any year by Order in Council, and that power was used in respect of each of the three years 1965 to 1967 to extend the period so as to run from the end of March until the end of October—or some seven months in all. This paragraph of the Schedule provides for the revival of the Summer Time Acts 1922 and 1947 only (as the 1925 Act merely altered the end of summer time from the day following the third Saturday in September to that following the first Saturday in October and would therefore be superseded by

261
the new terminal date), and for the period of summer time stipulated in the 1922 Act to be modified so as to conform to the period introduced for 1965–67 by Orders in Council (that is, from the day following the third Saturday in March to that following the fourth Saturday in October). In other words, this extended period would be built into the Statutes themselves; and, while there would still be power to vary it in any year either by shortening or by lengthening it, there would be the less occasion to do so.
The reason for the change is this. The inquiries we conducted prior to the introduction of this Bill showed that the extension of the summer time period introduced by Order in Council had been widely welcomed among people in all occupations and in all parts of the country. Whatever divisions of opinion there were about the desirability of applying the equivalent of summer time throughout the year, there were scarcely any of the representative organisations we consulted which wanted to revert to the basic statutory period contained in the Acts of 1922 and 1925. Virtually all wished to see summer time applied at least from the end of March until the end of October.
If the Summer Time Acts are to revive it is obviously sensible, therefore, it should be in a form which gives effect to this general wish. There should be nothing controversial in the proposal to do this. Indeed, it we do not the only result is likely to be that Orders in Council will have to be made year after year to achieve the same object; so wasting the time of both Houses on drafts requiring Affirmative Resolutions which it seems that nobody wilt wish to dispute. There is no point in putting Parliament to this unnecessary trouble or leaving uncertainty in the minds of the public. Even if British Standard. Time should be abandoned as a result of trial this useful little reform will remain, to the general satisfaction. My Lords, in this Schedule we thought of all possible contingencies, and I hope that your Lordships will approve it.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that for my part I agree with all the paragraphs of this new Schedule. I cannot
262
help thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Strange, left our counsels too early, for had he remained I believe he would have wished to express approval for paragraph 2 so far as it concerns Tynwald. I am certain that the special provision made in paragraph 3 is a wise one and in accordance with present-clay thinking.
There is only one question that I want to raise. On the printed copy I have, the first part of this new Schedule is to be inserted after Clause 4 in the Bill, but the second part is to be inserted after Clause 37. Is this a new manifestation of the Government's tortuous thinking? Are there 33 clauses which neither House of Parliament has seen? I feel teat we should hesitate before putting this mysterious material on the Statute Book. Or is the explanation simply that it is a misprint?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this is not the Government's usual omniscience. The noble Lord is quite right. This is a misprint, for which I apologise.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, before this Amendment is accepted by the House, may I just refer to the corn-meats of my noble friend Lord Stonham and of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to the effect that Lord Strange, whom we all know as a great champion of the Isle of Man, has unfortunately left the Chamber? May I step in in his place, and say that I think that the Isle of Man will welcome this and will greatly appreciate this modified quota of autonomy which has been given to them. My only excuse for saying this is so that one page of the history of the Isle of Man may be completed. Back in the year 1602, when the family of the noble Lord, Lord Strange, were virtually the Kings of the Isle of Man, they were faced with an incipient rebellion in that pleasant island; and the Stanleys, as they then were, found it necessary to send a Lieutenant Governor to deal with this rebellion. The name of the Lieutenant Governor whom they chose for that task was Leatherland. That page of history is now complete.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would not discuss history with my noble friend, but I should like to put him right on one thing to save myself a lot of grief in the future. We are not in this Bill giving any

263
form of autonomy to the Isle of Man. This is merely an example of the autonomy that they have enjoyed for a long time.

B.B.C.: ADVERTISING AND FINANCE
6.38 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to encourage or facilitate consideration by the British Broadcasting Corporation of the introduction of an element of advertising in their programmes, so that, without raising the present licence fees, the Corporation may have enough money for all its developments and for the improvement of its programmes. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had the honour to be a Governor of the B.B.C. for two periods, immediately before and during and for a year after the second of the Great Wars. The first of those periods coincided with the time when the noble Lord, Lord Reith, to whom the B.B.C. and this nation, and perhaps the world, owe a great debt for his ethical and moral attitude towards this new invention, was Director-General. It might be thought that, sitting at his feet as I did as a young Governor, I would have absorbed the whole of his doctrine and would have maintained it for a long time, because he was a most powerful man.
I felt with him at that time that the introduction of advertisements into any B.B.C. programme would have been almost sacrilege, certainly inadvisable, and I took that view. But I have changed my mind. As early as 1949, when the Beveridge Committee met to consider the whole process of the B.B.C. and to recommend whether they should have a further licence, I gave evidence to the Beveridge Committee in which I said that I did not see how, over the next decades, the B.B.C. could provide Britain with an adequate television service on the money which would be forthcoming from licence fees.
I would remind noble Lords that in those days the licence fee was 10s.; it then became £1; and now it is £5 for a joint licence for television and sound.
264
The result of this is that with its present number of listeners the B.B.C., according to their own figures, have some £70 million. Nevertheless, it is my case that they have not enough money to do properly the things that we should like them to do. Indeed, at this very moment local stations are coming into existence in various towns and cities. Some towns are welcoming them and then finding they are very expensive; other towns are refusing them because they are too expensive, and I think it is common knowledge that the B.B.C. is at its wit's end where to find enough money to run its services at a very high standard, to maintain them, improve them and to help towards the running of these local stations which a great many people are urging should be increased.
Where can they get some more money? By asking the Government of the day to raise the licence fee from £5 to £6 or £7, a very unpopular tax falling upon 12½ to 15 million people. Or, as I suggest, by taking advertisements. Here I want to ask noble Lords to bear with me for a very few minutes while I examine the merits of advertisements. First of all, since I first changed my mind and advocated to the Committee of 1949 that advertisements should be admitted in a proper form, the I.T.V. has come into existence and the I.T.V., as is known, takes advertisements. The consequence is that Britain has an infinitely better service than it had before because it has the B.B.C. and the I.T.V.—double as much perhaps. Moreover, the competition of the I.T.V. inevitably improved the B.B.C. which must have seemed to be complacent when it had a complete monopoly.
There may be some who say that the standards of the B.B.C. have fallen as a result of I.T.V. and its advertising and all the rest of it. I do not take that view. The B.B.C. has approached more nearly towards realistic attitudes towards the life that we live in the 1960s. If the standard of life in Britain has fallen in the 1960s by comparison with, say, the 1940s, well perhaps there is a valid argument there. But I think we cannot blame the B.B.C. for having approached more realistically the attitude of mind of the public whom it serves. I do not say, or agree, that its standards have fallen as a result of I.T.V. I would say, on the contrary, and as may

265
be expected, the competition of I.T.V. has improved the service as a whole to the public in general, and in particular from the B.B.C. itself.
May I now deal very briefly with what I will call the "ethics and economics" of advertising. It is ethical, it seems to me, to hold out to someone reasons why he should buy something, provided you hold it out fairly and clearly and without over-claiming and without exaggeration. May I here comment that I have no interest in advertising, no interest in radio, no interest whatever in this matter, but the public interest which I have studied for forty years.
Advertising has two public interests, renders two public services; one is to tell the people what is being made, what is available for them to buy to ease their labour in their factories, in their homes, in their daily lives, to encourage and enrich their lives and to give them better things to enjoy, and if there is to be more leisure in this world, better things to have during their leisure, so that it renders this first service by informing people what is being invented and what is being made. Secondly, it enables manufacturers to manufacture in larger quantities than would otherwise be the case and therefore to charge lower prices than would otherwise be the case were it not for this increased manufacture.
I am not saying that all prices always go down the more you advertise, because inflation sees to it that a great many prices always rise, but advertising, in so far as it enables more things to be made, circulated, distributed and sold, does lead to lower prices than would be the case if fewer things were made. It therefore has an ethical background which ought to be acceptable to the nation, and an economic justification which must be acceptable to a nation that must be effective and efficient. Incidentally, the health of the home market, based upon advertising and multiple manufacture, has a very important effect upon the export market, for without large manufacture at home a great many things cannot be sold in the world market at competitive prices, but with a good home market sustained by advertising, good quality, and the right price, there is the basis and the background for an export market.
This leads to the first, but by no means most important, of the suggestions which I want to make. I only make it now because it fits in with my mention of the word "export". The B.B.C. as agent, not as principal, for the Government, and at the taxpayers' expense, runs the Overseas Service, and very well indeed it does as I am able to judge because I am a great traveller. I have listened to it in South Africa, and seaboard and elsewhere, and I know how extremely good and interesting it is. All praise to the B.B.C. and the trim and women who do it. It hardly ever mentions a British firm by name. It may talk of great shipbuilding contracts that have been obtained on the Clyde, Northern Ireland, or elsewhere; it may talk of great contracts for new inventions; it may laud and praise new inventions, but it does not mention the firm which has made them. The Japanese, the Germans, the Dutch, and the American overseas services all use them, not to the detriment of art and ethics, but use them wisely and sensibly to advertise their products.
It seems a pity that British endeavour, British invention, British skill a id art should go unheard and unsung because we do not allow advertisement in overseas service. This is the direct responsibility of Government, not of the Governors of the B.B.C., because it is the Government who order what goes into the Overseas Service the B.B.C. is only the manager. I ask that in the Overseas Service of the B.B.C. we should permit judicious advertising of our motor cars, our engineering accomplishments, our new inventions, our aircraft and all the products on which we rely in the export trade. Not only would it be of interest to those who listen in the making of comparisons, but it would be advantageous to this country.
May I now turn from the general arguments in favour of advertising, both ethical and economic, to its effect on the listener. It is said that the listener cannot tolerate the interruption of his programmes for advertising. Many people used to think this twenty or thirty years ago. Fewer must think it now in view of the success of I.T.V. I have never believed it. Northcliffe said that if you want to sell newspapers you must be sure

267
that in every edition you mention birth, deaths, marriages and food. I would say that if you want to attract listeners to the B.B.C. you must be sure to mention the things that will interest the man in the street or the woman in her home—the things which a woman will buy with her spare money or with her home-spending money. The programmes which she sees on television, or the broadcasts to which she listens on B.B.C. sound programmes bring daily into her home information as to the world outside. It is a regular and genuine service which is of great value to a woman, for example, to tell her what is in the shops. This is especially the case for the old and the lonely who cannot get out so easily to see what is in the shops. Therefore, it is a positive contribution to their happiness and is something which they like. It is part of the programmes which, in my opinion, is among the most valuable to the listener and viewer.
Long ago, in 1925, I was a member of the Crawford Committee which considered whether the B.B.C. should continue to be a private company or become a public corporation. We recommended to Parliament that it should be a public corporation, and that recommendation resulted in the B.B.C. as we know it. It is worthy of note that although the Crawford Committee suggested that advertisements should be avoided where possible, its Report contained among its recommendations a clause which, by implication, recognised that sponsored programmes might be necessary in order to find the money. I am not suggesting that there should be interruptions of Radio 4, which is the old Home Service, or Radio 3, which is the music service, or the cricket service during a Test Match. I am sure that noble Lords will know all this, unless they have all gone over to television and have forgotten the old sound service. Some few millions listen to those services, and I am not suggesting that they should be interrupted with advertisements. But in regard to the old Light Programme, which is now called Radio 2 and Radio 1, which is mostly "pop", I cannot really believe that "pop" is more acceptable than advertisements—but perhaps it is. I even think that five minutes of advertisements in half an hour of "pop" would be a splendid change.
The Crawford Committee, which founded the B.B.C., not only permitted of the possibility that advertisements might be used, but the B.B.C. itself, shy as it is of recognising advertisements for other people, does not hesitate to use them for itself. It tells us every week to buy the Radio Times or the Listener. It tells us that we have just been listening to Madam somebody or other "by permission of Covent Garden", or to somebody else by permission of an impressario or a theatre. It freely advertises when it suits itself, and yet in principle it is opposed to taking advertisements.
I ask my Question in the hope that some of your Lordships may feel, not that I have made out a case for a change, but that I have suggested that there is a case for an unprejudiced inquiry so that the Government, the nation and Parliament ought to make sure that we do not accept that the pattern of the last forty years is necessarily the right pattern for the next forty years. My own personal regard is so high for the B.B.C., its Board, its Chairman (who is a personal friend of mine), its managers and its traditions that I am quite sure that if they were to undertake the judicious use of advertisements, as I am suggesting, they would do it with great efficiency, and I know that they would do it with grace.
6.57 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords. I should like to offer qualified support for the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, though it may be that with my qualification he will regard my support as not worth having. He has referred to the Beveridge Committee of 1949 which had to consider the renewal of the B.B.C's. Charter and make recommendations as to the terms on which it should be renewed. Your Lordships will remember that with one dissension that Committee came down strongly in favour of public service broadcasting and television dependent on receipts from licence fees. There were three members of the Commission who at the time took the view which has just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser. They were Lord Beveridge, the chairman, Lady Megan Lloyd George, and I. The three of us put in a minority Report in

269
favour of allowing the B.B.C. to secure advertisement revenue for television.
I shall not try to delve into the motives of my two colleagues, who unfortunately are not here to tell the tale. My own motive for signing that minority Report was the hope that it might appease a very large section of the powerful anti-Beveridge lobby which was building up in the House of Commons and which was efficiently led by representatives of the advertising industries and the electrical industries. I felt that if the B.B.C. were allowed to admit the first of those great interests to its programmes their desire to break its monopoly might be diminished. So far as I remember, nobody thought very seriously about the question. It was rejected by the majority of the Committee and it was in fact never carried out. As your Lordships well know, we had a subsequent Act which introduced commercial television, financed by and entirely dependent upon advertising revenue. It was not quite on the American model, which allowed the sponsoring of programmes by the advertisers and it was under the statutory control of the Independent Television Authority, but it produced a system of television which was financially dependent on mass audiences attracted by advertisements.
The noble Lord has expressed an opinion about the results of that dichotomy of broadcasting policy. He has said that the B.B.C. television service has greatly benefited from it owing to the stimulus which results from competition. I think that in some respects the B.B.C. may have benefited. The independent programme companies, especially that run by Granada, have put out some extremely good programmes, though they generally came on late at night because they are less likely to attract mass listeners. Granada has also on some occasions taken the lead in being rather bolder in its discussions of prickly subjects such as birth control; but, on the other hand, it his produced an effect on the B.B.C. which I, personally, consider deleterious.
The B.B.C. is always looking over its shoulder at the results of the TAM ratings and opinion polls. It is always on the alert to make sure that its listening public, or its viewing public in this case, is not being sucked away into the
270
competing Independent Television companies. That, I think, has had a bad effect on the B.B.C., and has prevented it, in some respects, from expressing the kind of policy with which Lord Reith agreed and which he implanted in the B.B.C. He was perhaps over-austere in some ways, but he was never vulgar. It is this constant looking over its shoulder that I think, on balance, has been the drawback, and has not benefited the B.B.C. It is always bad for any responsible body to be looking over its shoulder at the immediate result of its actions. It is a very bad thing for politicians to be constantly considering the results of recent opinion polls on them. We know that it is very bad indeed for Prime Ministers, and it is also bad for the B.B.C.
As regards the financial question, the search for funds in order to improve B.B.C. programmes, the Corporation has to consider that the public is under the mistaken impression that it gets its commercial television programmes for nothing. Of course it does not. It pays for them through the prices of the advertised commodities. An immense amount of money goes into the advertising industries, an immense amount of talent, an immense amount of office accommodation—in fact, in my opinion, quite enough. There is another possible result in this so-called financial benefit to television by advertising, or for that matter radio; that is, that if the public grows accustomed to thinking it can finance its entertainment in this roundabout way it will be less ready to accept the necessity of paying a licence fee. After all, my Lords, when you come to think of it, £4, £5 or £6 provides an immense amount of extremely cheap entertainment for the public. It gets very, very good service for the licence fee.
Supposing advertisements were extended to the foreign service, I think it might have a most disastrous result. The great success of the B.B.C. Overseas Service is that it is recognised throughout the world as wholly impersonal aid disinterested. That is the great service which it renders to humanity, and I cannot but think that that service would be somewhat adulterated if the foreign listener were able to listen, for instance, to the praise of some British motor manufacturing firm, or even a small arms

271
firm, whatever it might be. It would at once lead to the feeling among listeners that "They are getting at us." That feeling, I think, is not shared by any listeners to the foreign service of the B.B.C.
Therefore, I wholly reject the suggestion that B.B.C. television should become dependent on advertising, and I wholly reject the suggestion that the foreign service should become dependent, or partially dependent, on advertising. I wholly reject the suggestion that competition on commercial television has been wholly beneficial to the B.B.C.
Now to the points on which I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. In recent years we have had to face the problem of the pirate radio stations, and the growth of the enormous rather youthful public which has become dependent on a perpetual diet of "pop" music. The pirate companies made good money out of advertising spots. They, of course, were in a more favourable financial position than the B.B.C. because many of them did not have to face the fact of paying copyright fees: they were pirates.
The B.B.C. on Radio 1 is now appeasing that audience which formerly relied on pirates by producing a programme as like the programmes of the pirate stations as possible. It cannot be quite like their programmes, owing to the rather restrictive practices of the Musicians' Union in regard to the allocation of "needle-time". If you listen to Radio 1 you will find that it is very much like the material that used to come from Radio Caroline; and the patrons of the pirate stations, as the noble Lord pointed out, were quite happy with their advertisement spots. I am sure the patrons of Radio 1 would be similarly happy with their advertising spots, so I see no reason why Radio 1 should not make a little money by advertising spots. But I should very much regret it if Radio 2, Radio 3 or Radio 4 were to do any such thing. I think it would be disturbing to one's enjoyment of, let us say, the St. Matthew Passion, or an interview by Malcolm Muggeridge, if it had to be interrupted, preceded or followed by an exhortation to "wash white" or make cakes in a certain way.
272
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, in suggesting that the B.B.C. may make a little money by allowing advertisements on Radio 1. Some time ago I wrote a letter to The Times to that effect—since I became a Member of the House of Lords my letters to The Times have been accepted. That suggestion was not, I think, followed up with any enthusiasm by anybody, and it positively shocked the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who read it before he departed overseas, and who was one of my colleagues on the Beveridge Committee. He thought it terrible to think that the pure milk of the B.B.C. public service broadcasting should be adulterated by this awful thing —advertising spots. I should not be in favour of adulterating pure milk, even by a non-deleterious ingredient, but I do not see why one should not allow a little harmless adulteration of substandard food, because that I think is what Radio 1 is.
7.8 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. I found myself, if I may say so, in very great agreement with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks. I agree very much that if an experiment in advertising on the B.B.C. is to be carried out it should be limited to Radio 1. There are two reasons—which have been mentioned —why people oppose advertising on radio. The first is the fear that there might be undue influence on the content of the programmes by those responsible for watching the popularity ratings; and the second is the fear that advertisements would interfere with the tone of the programmes.
So far as the first is concerned, I think that as Radio 1 is a "pop" programme, and is meant to produce the type of music that the greatest number of people want to hear most of the time, the more outside influence there is the more likely it is to be a true "pop" programme. I agree with the noble Baroness that advertisements would not interfere with the tone of Radio 1; in fact they fit in very well, as was found on the pirate radios, with the patter,of so-called "disc jockeys". Indeed they can be extremely amusing.
There would be the other advantages in having advertising on Radio 1. In

273
the first place, I think it would produce the biggest listening audience of the four programmes of the B.B.C., and therefore would bring in the biggest advertising revenue. It would enable the B.B.C. to run Radio 1 all the time. As your Lordships may know, Radio 1 and Radio 2 run very much in double harness for part of the day. For about two hours in the morning and about three hours in the evening Radio 1 and Radio 2 are together, and they diverge to their separate programmes at other times. The disadvantage of this is that those who like listening regularly to the old Light Programme, Radio 2, want to hear what the "pop" pirates used to call "sweet" music, whereas those who listen to Radio 1 want to hear "pop" music. I have heard very many complaints from people who, having turned on Radio 1 to get their evening's ration of "pop", have got light music instead. With advertising, these two programmes would be able to run separately throughout the day.
Another point is that advertising would give the B.B.C. more money, and with the advantage of extra money to pay for record-playing rights they might well be able to negotiate some better agreement with the Musicians' Union over needle time. This was done in America very successfully. The broadcasting companies there pay into some fund which is used for the betterment of the lot of musicians generally, and they can have virtually unlimited needle time. With advertising revenue the B.B.C. might well be able to come to some agreement with the Musicians' Union which would enable them to play records all the time on Radio 1—because Radio 1 achieves its purpose much better with records—and still have its quota of records on the other three programmes. Making Radio 1 self-supporting in this way would leave all the licence money to the other three programmes, which could therefore afford very much more; and the commercial profit on. Radio land I think there must be a commercial profit on it—might even enable the B.B.C. to reduce the cost of the sound licence, or at any rate to refrain from putting it up when, as inevitably they will, they feel they have to.
I suggest that advertising might be much more important still in connection
274
with local radio stations. As your Lordships know, there are some eight local radio stations as a pilot experiment—six working, two about to come—and from what one can gather they do not make money, or at the moment they do not manage to raise locally the money they need. Indeed, in answering a Question on June 13 in another place, the Postmaster General said:
"In some instances the revenue is forthcoming locally and, after we have had time to assess them fully, it may be that two or three of them will be able to raise sufficient finance and make local broadcasting a viable proposition for the future".—[OFFICIAL REPORT Commons, 13/6/68, col. 421.]
My Lords, two or three out of eight becoming viable propositions in the future does not seem to be a very optimistic thought. It is really not very surprising. At present, money for these local radio stations comes, I believe, partly from the local authority and partly from the B B.C. licence revenue. The local authority have been willing to pay money for the first year or two as an experiment, but will they be prepared to go on paying this money? Their ratepayers may well protest in due time, particularly if they do not care for the local programmes. In the long-term, I also feel that it would be wrong for the B.B.C. to go on paying money out of the general licence revenue for programmes which benefit only very small minority of listeners.
Surely here, in local radio, there is an ideal case for advertising revenue. Local stations can be made to pay. Radio Manx, I believe, has an audience of 50,000 people, and yet that has been made into a commercial proposition. If you can make a commercial proposition out of an audience of 50,000 in the Isle of Man, that means that there are many towns which could support two or three local radio stations. London could probably support about twelve. My noble friends and I would like to see a wide system of local commercial radio stations; and I cannot help feeling that it would be very much better to take local radio out of the hands of the B.B.C. Possibly the control of these stations could be put into the hands of the Independent Television Authority. They have had a great deal of experience in commercial broadcasting. It would mean slightly renaming them into the Independent Broadcasting

275
Authority. If that were done I can foresee that the freehold of the local station would be owned by the local authority; they would let this to a programme contractor whom they would select with the help of the new Independent Broadcasting Authority, and part of the terms of the lease could be that they would keep for the local authority perhaps 50 per cent. of the profits which could then be used for local amenities, such as swimming pools, concert halls and things of that kind.
My Lords, the advantages of local radio stations run in this way would be that they would be run at no cost to the ratepayers—the ratepayers would even get an advantage out of it in the form of their share of the profits—and at no cost to the B.B.C., and they would be able to produce a really alternative programme to those of the B.B.C. The difficulty about the present local broadcasting programmes, I believe, is that when items of local interest are not on they fill in with parts of programmes from B.B.C. 1 and B.B.C. 2. These programmes are only on V.H.F., and a large number of people do not have V.H.F. sets. There is not a very great incentive to buy V.H.F. sets so that they can hear local programmes if the only programme different from what they can hear on their other sets is the odd half-hour of local interest. But if this number of local radio stations under the auspices of the Independent Broadcasting Authority were to be working and taking advertisements, they could have very well prepared programmes on tape which would produce a really different programme from the B.B.C. In that way a local broadcasting station could produce all day long an alternative programme of local interest which would really pay. My Lords, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give very serious consideration to the possibilities of advertising.
7.19 p.m.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, clearly this question is one of degree. Those noble Lords who have spoken so far have agreed that there should be an element of advertising in the B.B.C.'s repertoire. The question is: what element? No one who has spoken wants uncontrolled advertising. No one wants
276
the situation which now exists in America, where programmes are interrupted every ten minutes by advertisements which are often infuriating and disruptive to the listener or the viewer. No one wants the B.B.C. to run on the same system as Independent Television. No one wants the situation where there is a danger that television will appeal only to the mass audiences—which, of course, may well happen if there is only commercial television and radio in this country.
It seems generally to be realised that, while the coming of I.T.V. has improved B.B.C. programmes, has made the B.B.C. more conscious that it has to take notice of the will of its viewers and listeners and cannot impose its own tastes, its own views on the public, it must also be realised that there can be no general tendency towards the independent system which runs a danger of appealing only to the mass audiences.
I wonder how many of us really appreciate what a valuable thing we have in the B.B.C. The B.B.C. is, to an extent, a prophet in its own country. It is only when one talks to foreigners that one really understands what a high regard people in the world have for the B.B.C. It is one of the very few broadcasting systems that is almost entirely independent either of the Government or of advertising. Surely, there can be no worse disaster than having the B.B.C. run the risk of losing this independence and of reaching the stage that is reached, say, in France, where the Government have quite a lot to say in the political views expressed on French radio and television, or in America.
Of course, it is all very well for the B.B.C. to have these high moral standards and high cultural standards, but it has to pay its way and the question is: Where is it going to get its money? This question has become more acute in recent years because several times it has had to ask the Government to put up its licence fee. In 1963, the B.B.C. received an extra £1, which was then an excise duty, and it was then on a £4 licence. From 1963 to 1965, it operated on a £4 licence. From 1965 to the present day it has operated on a £5 licence. Three times in the last five years the B.B.C. has had to ask for an extra £1. There have been two very unusual reasons for this. I do

277
not think that one should assume, as some noble Lords may, that the B.B.C. will now be asking for an extra £1 every two or three years. Clearly, some noble Lords are frightened by the regular increases there have been in the cost of the licence.
Until about five years ago, the B.B.C. was getting regular increases in its revenue—enough to cope with inflation—from the extra number of people who bought licences and from the increase in the viewing public. Also, in the last couple of years, the B.B.C. has had abnormal expenditure. It introduced B.B.C. 2; it brought about a colour service which many people think is the best in the world. Clearly B.B.C. 2 and the colour service cost the B.B.C. a fortune. These two services must be the main reasons why the B.B.C. has had to ask for extra money.
The question where the money is to come from can be answered in several ways. I go less of the way with the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, who moved this Motion, than with other noble Lords who have spoken. I think there may be a case for having a very small element of advertising in Radio 1 and, perhaps, in B.B.C. 1; but I should hate to see programmes interrupted by advertisements. If there are to be advertisements I should prefer a quarter of an hour of advertisements once or twice a day. This happens in Germany and in one or two other countries in Europe. It is partly an information service and partly a public service. To this extent it is in the tradition of the B.B.C. that it should inform the public of what there is on the market and of what people ought to buy. But the B.B.C., in accepting advertisements, should keep strict control over the way they are worded and presented. The only way it can do this is for there to be no material between advertisements. It also would have the beneficial effect, from the listeners' point of view, that those who do not like to listen to advertising, who are irritated by having their viewing or listening interrupted by advertisements, could turn off their sets while those who want to be informed would know when the advertisements were going to be presented and could switch on.
Another possibility, which exists, for example, in Canada, and one which I am
278
surprised has not been pressed by the B.B.C. more strongly, is that part of the purchase tax on radio and T.V. sets should be made available to the B.B.C. Clearly, if there were no programmes there would be very few sets sold; to this extent the Treasury reaps the benefit of the efforts of the B.B.C. since it gets the tax which is paid for receiving sets. The third way of raising money is by Government grant. This many people will think is the most dangerous of all for it means that the Government finance the B.B.C. out of general taxation. If the Government were displeased with the way the B.B.C. was running its affairs they could find an excuse to reduce its revenue or even to cut it off altogether and take the B.B.C. off the air.
The fourth, and, to my mind, the only real basis for financing the Corporation is by the present means of licence fees. The B.B.C. provides what is perhaps the best bargain in the world in entertainment. Even the proposed £6 licence—which the Government in the December 1966 White Paper gave a clear undertaking to bring into effect this year—represents only 4d. a day—the cost of a newspaper. And for this 4d. one gets three radio programmes and two television programmes. This is extraordinarily cheap.
There are two sources of increased revenue already under way. Evasion has been cut down and I am told that this has brought in to the B.B.C. much more extra revenue than they expected. There will also be an annual increase in the number of colour licence-holders, and this will to an extent bring the B.B.C. back to the situation which existed in the 1950s when there was an ever-increasing number of licence holders providing the B.B.C. with extra revenue every year without the price of the licence being increased. But I think that the Government whichever Party may be in Office should face the fact that if there was advertising it could provide only a small part of the B.B.C.'s revenue. The sort of advertising I have suggested, and which other noble Lords have suggested, is not ideal from the point of view of the advertiser who would prefer to advertise on commercial television rather than under conditions which Parliament would find permissible. Therefore, the advertisements will not provide the basis for the

279
B.B.C.'s finance. I suggest that this is quite as it should be.
My Lords, the cost of running the B.B.C. will increase with inflation and with the price of keeping pace with technical progress. The B.B.C. will always need more money. I think the only way in which this may be provided is by the licence fee being reviewed regularly and put up if necessary. Almost everyone can afford this licence fee. Those who cannot should not be deprived of the public service which broadcasting can give them, and they should be helped. But I ask your Lordships to agree that the licence fee shall in future be the basis for the B.B.C.'s finance. That is the only way that the standard of programmes will be improved, or even preserved.
7.32 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, because I agree with practically everything he said. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, has put up a reasonable and typically House of Lords argument on this matter which is, of course, the sublimation of reason. In fact what we are looking at is one of Britain's greatest national assets—of that there is no question. Anyone who travels the world as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said he did, will realise that the B.B.C. as it is to-day (even with our criticism, which they respect) is the envy of the entire world. No system has been created which gives to the public, and not just the buyers of entertainment, the quality and in many cases an experimental adventure (we do not always respect that, and sometimes suspect it) that the B.B.C. gives. It has been a great innovator of ideas, and it gives an example to the world to which others have tried to aspire but have lost on the way.
Judged by British viewing standards I cannot imagine anything worse than the kind of thing to which people are subjected by, for example, a completely commercialised system like the American system. I was in the United States when Gemini was meeting in space. They interrupted that meeting to put on a commercial. The public service programmes, which are the high quality programmes in the United States, are put on at times
280
and subjected to conditions which are not acceptable to the commercial advertisers, and therefore they get the worst show.
My Lords, we are struggling all the time between two things. First, I would declare my position. I was against Independent Television and believed that it would lower the standards. Indeed, for a long period of time it did, although it may be better now in many ways, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks. But in point of fact what happened was that the B.B.C. had a monopoly at that time, a monopoly which was training highly-qualified people to put on very responsible programmes from the cultural and technical point of view. Then we had Independent Television, and what we are seeing to-day is the "robbing of the hen-roost", the spreading of talent too thinly and the dropping of programmes, at least temporarily, because of a lack of technical skills. Independent Television derived what talent it has from the B.B.C.
My Lords, I would put up a very fervent argument that we do not corrupt in any way. I do not give a damn—I beg your Lordships' pardon—I have no concern or interest whatever about what is done with "pop". You can put any advertisements you like in those programmes. I find plausible the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, on the question of VHF and, indeed, of local radios, which could in local terms carry advertising and subsidise themselves to create for the local market the kind of local interest which might have to be provided by the ratepayers. But beyond that I would not go. If we had to pay up to £10 for a B.B.C. licence it would be cheap at the price. I am not advocating that it should go up to £10 but, by golly! the sooner we give the B.B.C. its £6 licence, the happier I shall be.
We must reinforce the quality of the B.B.C. programmes. It is true, as was said by my noble friend Lady Stocks, that the B.B.C. has been subject to the tremendous pressure of the TAM ratings—that awful, insidious business of comparing the listening figures of such-and-such a programme and then looking over your shoulder and degrading your own programme to try to approximate to what in fact is the lower standard that you would not accept unless challenged by the TAM ratings. I believe it is the duty of the B.B.C. to give the highest

281
quality programmes that this country can take, and some high quality programmes take a lot of "taking".
The point is that we in this country are in a position to give a cultural sustenance which it is not possible to give under the dictates of a system which is governed by sponsorship. In many cases, sponsors are very noble in the way they support the Metropolitan Opera House, and so on, but nevertheless they dictate the quality and, indeed, the content of programmes in the countries where they have been able to take over. I want to see the B.B.C. go on as it is, reinforced by talent for which it can afford to pay and to buttress itself against the competitive inroads of Independent Television by the buying-up of its best people and so on.
I want, in particular—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, would agree with me—to see it go more adventurously into what was at one time its great triumph, experimental sound radio. With our obsession with television we are in grave danger of forgetting sound radio which in many cases is far more provocative than vision, and which demands a great deal of imagination and presentation in order to make it as viable as the competing visual programmes. In the great days, this was the great experimental field in radio documentaries. Therefore, we have to reinforce and buttress sound radio.
We have to encourage what is the best quality colour television in the world. If your Lordships have seen the green eggs on American television, you would agree with me that the quality of our colour television is extremely high. We want everyone to have colour television. I was struck by what has happened in Canada, where it is recognised that the transmission companies, whether the C.B.C. or the B.B.C., are in fact providing the means for manufacturers to sell sets. Why should not the B.B.C. have a "rake-off" from the price of sets which are sold? I would remind your Lordships that we hear a great deal about Independent Television and how it is beating the need et cetera, but in point of fact the foundation of all viewing on television are the sets provided originally under the licensing system of the B.B.C. I am not underestimating what I.T.A. pay back. Nevertheless, they are beneficiaries of sets
282
which originally were provided because of the quality of and demand for the B.B.C. Let us be clear about this. Over my dead body shall we put advertising into foreign broadcasts.
The quality of the B.B.C. Overseas Services is respected because it is not "plugging" brand products. Many noble Lords are experts on advertising, and they know the difference between "plugging" a brand product and prestige advertising. The detachment and objectivity of the B.B.C. Overseas Services make them listened to everywhere. I have been abroad and listened to the presentations of British advertisers and prepared programmes describing what companies are doing. We are not "plugging" these products but creating an atmosphere on the B.B.C. which people abroad can accept with safety. We are building prestige for British industry. Therefore we must not pollute—I was going to say dilute—this by introducing advertising.
There are many ways in which we can raise money for the improvement of the B.B.C., but I ask your Lordships to rely basically and absolutely on the licensing system. For it is this which gives the B.B.C. its independence from Government grants and removes it from any sort of pressure to lower standards at the demand of people who do not appreciate the standards which the B.B.C. has set.
7.42 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am tempted to join in this debate because I have been extremely intrested by all the speeches that have gone before. Until the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, I thought that it was going to be the case that every noble Lord who has spoken up to now is in favour of some measure of advertising on the B.B.C., and that it would go out from your Lordships' House after a debate of this nature that the consensus of opinion among your Lordships was in favour of B.B.C. advertising in some form or shape.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: I would give my qualified consent, if it were put into the "pop" side.
EARL FERRERS: All I can say, my Lords, is that the noble Lord disappoints me. I, for one, should hate to see the B.B.C. indulge in any advertising whatsoever. My noble friend Lord Fraser of

283
Lonsdale made a fascinating plea, and made it even more fascinating at the end by saying that of course he was not advocating that the B.B.C. should carry advertising, but merely that the Government should institute an Inquiry. I know that the Government like instituting Inquiries, but my Lords, I believe that government by Inquiry is a bad thing. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, will give us an assurance that on this occasion the Government do not agree with the proposal that the B.B.C. should carry advertising and do not consider that an inquiry is worth while. I think it would be a very great pity if the B.B.C. entered into the sphere of advertising. My noble friend's speech was a remarkable advocacy for commercial radio, but that is a different thing from advertising on the B.B.C.
It has been said that I.T.V. has stimulated and improved general television programmes. I think that this may be so. If one watches I.T.V., one tolerates the advertisements. That does not mean that one necessarily enjoys looking at them—at any rate, not all of them. If one were to make a diagnosis of the advertisements, one would find a preponderance of advertisements about soap, washing machines, how to scrub the sink and other such mundane matters.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that if he is not interested in washing, women are?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am sure that if there were a little more moderation in advertisements, they would still get the point through quite well. If the B.B.C. were allowed to advertise, then the pundits would fix what is the best time for advertising—presumably when people are not watching television; namely, when they get up in the morning, or when they are in bed, and switch on the radio. Then the psychologists would go a step further and say that advertising should be done early in the morning when a chap first gets up and before he has got his wits to react against the message, which then would seep through.
I find it bad enough, when I switch on the Light Programme, which is the normal thing in the morning, to hear a
284
disc jockey yattering at me at a rate of knots. For some extraordinary reason they seem to think that one switches on the wireless to listen to them and not to the music. When I want to listen to music, I find it perfectly distasteful to listen to a disc jockey saying how a girl has brought him a cup of lemon tea and how nice it is. I find this unacceptable first thing in the morning. How awful it would be if we were told that it was lemon tea of such-and-such a brand! I believe that the B.B.C. made a great mistake when they tried to emulate the "pop" programmes. This was a huge pity. Certainly the "pop" programmes had a following, but if one tries to copy anything, on the whole one loses one's character and individuality, as well as a certain degree of respect. It is a great pity that the B.B.C. have gone the length they have in trying to copy "pop" radio.
I have always been an upholder of the B.B.C., if not often in public, then in private, because I think they have done a remarkable job. People complain because the programmes they listen to are not those they like; but since the B.B.C. have to cater for a wide variety of tastes, obviously at some juncture one is going to be irked by what one hears. Yet on the whole the B.B.C. have done extremely well.
I would underline what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has said. If the B.B.C. are short of money, the first thing to do is to economise on disc jockeys, and the second to put up the licence fee. The fee of £5 is not excessive. It works out at 4d. a day for the right to switch on your wireless and television, all three channels, for as long as you like. Any couple going out for the evening to a cinema are likely to spend £1 or more, yet the B.B.C. have a £5 fee for the whole year. If they really are pressed for money, that is the right answer. And for goodness' sake! let us keep the B.B.C. clear of advertising.
7.50 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, a great many hard things have been said about advertising this evening, and some of the speeches remind me of those that were made during the long debates when legislation on Independant Television was first introduced into your Lordships' House. I must say straight away that I

285
enjoy a great deal of advertising on television—far more than some of the programmes. I find the advertising more creative, more amusing and more stimulating. But perhaps I am biased, because for many years I have worked in advertising, and possibly I have a professional interest in watching them.
My only excuse for venturing to intervene in this debate for a short while is to mention one matter that has not yet been touched upon, and that is the important question of the fourth channel. We know that the Government are to decide within the next few years what will be the whole future of the B.B.C., when the Charter comes up for renewal, and also of the I.T.A.; and obviously the fourth channel is one of the matters which will receive their urgent consideration. It could be given to the B.B.C. for the University of the Air, or it could be given to Independent Television under a separate authority. But whatever happens, the question of advertising will have to be considered.
I do not know whether this is any comfort to my noble friend Lady Stocks, but there has been some recession in the advertising industry in the last year or two, and I am not at all certain whether there would be enough advertising forthcoming to support a fourth channel, or even to support the B.B.C. if the Corporation were run entirely on advertising. These are factors which must be taken into account. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and indeed with all other noble Lords who have spoken, except possibly the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that there is a case for advertising on sound radio, and particularly, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, on local sound radio.
I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Bowles whether the Government yet know the results of the local radio experiment which was outlined in the White Paper of 1966 and to which the noble Lord, Lord Denham, alluded. I spoke on this when the House had a debate a short time ago on this White Paper, and I then gave my view that the financial support would not be forthcoming. The idea was that these local radio stations should not receive proper commercial advertising, but should be
286
financed by what the White Paper calls subventions by local authorities, but with no charge on the rates. And local bodies were also expected to give some support. I never thought that this support could be forthcoming in sufficient volume to support these radio stations as a viable proposition, and from what one hears about them, although they have barely been started, they are already running into considerable difficulties. It was therefore an ill-fated and ill-starred galère, practically from the moment it was launched. The experiment having been conducted, it is already proving a failure, and. I hope that the Government will now consider some proper commercial support for radio.
I agree basically with my noble friend Lady Stocks that there is a case for running Radio 1 on advertising. I cannot, however, agree with her when she says that she thinks it is as good as Radio Caroline. I do not think it is nearly so good as Radio Caroline. However, if it were run on advertising, and one could also sort out the question of the "needle-time", I think one could probably bring it to the kind of popular appeal which Radio Caroline had. I agree with other noble Lords who have spoken that there is a case for laving advertising on Radio 1, and also for running local sound radio stations on this basis, in the way in which it is so successfully conducted by Radio Manx in the Isle of Man—and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Strange, in his place.
I am sure we are all grateful -do the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, for initiating this debate and for giving the House an opporutnity to ventilate the many sides of the subject, because it is one that will be much in the mind of the Government, and indeed of the public, during the next few years.
7.55 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I expect I shall be in the last of this rather unexpectedly long list of speakers, but before the debate ends I should like to say a few words. I think my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale was quite right in saying that the development and improvement of programmes is extremely important. There is no doubt that sound radio and television are taking an ever

287
increasing part in the life of the nation. But I wonder whether the introduction of advertising is the way to ensure a high standard of programme. While there can be no doubt that the B.B.C. are in constant need of money for expansion, the quality of programme comes more from good taste and high moral standards, which I must confess I have considered regrettably lacking in those who are responsible for B.B.C. policy.
I am not one of those who wants every programme to be deadly serious. I realise that good sound entertainment value is absolutely necessary, and that the other more serious programmes must always be in the minority. But what has rather shocked me is the gradually deteriorating sense of what I might call moral standards; the constant glamorising of violence and the rather ungoverned sexual feelings, the rather pooh-poohing of what one might call ethical standards.
No doubt many noble Lords will have seen the report in the Press that Sir Hugh Greene, the Director-General, is about to retire. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, ha said that during the time of Sir Hugh Greene the B.B.C. has improved enormously in scope, quantity and relationship to the public mood. I cannot agree with this. I think that the tone of the B.B.C. during the past few years has deteriorated very greatly. When one looks back to what it was under Lord Reith and compares it with what it is now, one cannot help feeling that it has sunk a very long way.
So far as advertising is concerned, I tend to agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers, although I feel that advertising on Radio 1 might be permissible, because the mentality of those who want to listen to "pop" music all day will not be harassed by a few advertisements. But it is not the fact of introducing advertising that is so important; it is the nature of the advertisements. They are so inexpressibly vulgar. I look at the I.T.V. quite often and really, my Lords, to have a serious play interrupted by some stupid song about a new brand of lipstick, or something like that, is really more than one can bear. I sincerely hope that the B.B.C. will not indulge in that type of advertising, at any rate during their serious programmes.
288
My noble friend spoke of advertising without exaggeration. Has anyone ever seen advertising without exaggeration? I certainly have not. To be told that some new form of breakfast food is the way to a higher life, to greater enjoyment and success, and everything that man could possibly desire, seems to me to be a little beyond the confines of "no exaggeration". I feel that advertising it would be a backward step. One is constantly being told that one must not blind one's eyes to the facts of life and that one must not try to live in an ivory tower. I agree, my Lords, but on the other hand there is all the difference between seeing facts as they are and seeing the facts and then glamorising the bad and denigrating the good. That is what I feel is the great evil in broadcasting to-day.
I do not think I shall find many people who will agree with me. Apparently, most noble Lords who have spoken have been firm supporters of the B.B.C., and I really do not think it is any good my wasting your Lordships' time in saying any more. But I sincerely hope that the Government will think very seriously before introducing advertising into the programmes transmitted by the B.B.C., other than in Radio 1 or during very light programmes.
8.2 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I apologise for rising in my place for the third time to-day, but Manx Radio has been mentioned by your Lordships and I should just like to make one comment on it. It is true that the Manx Radio is extremely well run and manages, for a population of 47,000 to make itself pay on torch-battery power. I cannot say any more because discussions are going on now about whether the power could be increased, but I think I may say that if the power was increased we could bring back to England the "pop" radio that children love. And I would tell the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, that if one asks any young person, it is the old "pop" radio that they want, with the joie de vivre of the free radio.
I apologise for speaking so much today, but I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, is in his place because there is one point which I should like to make for his guidance, or interest. I am not sure that there is

289
not a certain amount of "pirate" radio advertising going on. I will try to explain what I mean to your Lordships, and to give you one instance. There is a game of lawn tennis played at a place called Wimbledon. I believe that a great number of people look at that programme, and when they look at it they see shots of the players changing courts, and on the ladder there is painted, in titanium white paint, which is so clear that one can see it a mile off, the name of the people who can supply the racquets, the balls and the nets. To my mind, that is a form of unpaid, "pirate" advertising.
8.5 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, very briefly, I have listened to the speeches in this interesting debate on the future of the B.B.C., and having listened to all the speeches I am one of those who are not convinced that a case has been made out. We have the commercial medium, we have the public service, and they are, I suppose, to a certain extent in competition. The public has a wide range of choice and I hope very much that when my noble friend Lord Bowles comes to reply on behalf of the Government he will tell us that the Government intend to leave well alone.
BARONESS STOCKS: Hear, hear!
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: Nevertheless, I think we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord. Fraser of Lonsdale, for introducing this subject. In my view, he made out a persuasive case, and he has a long and wide experience of this subject. His Motion seems to place the main emphasis upon revenue, but when he was speaking I thought he placed the main emphasis upon asking the Government for an inquiry into this matter. I doubt very much whether at the present time the public are of the opinion that they want to see a change made. As I understand it, the public has been against a change being made in favour of the B.B.C.'s using advertising, on its local stations or nationally. In my view, it is the responsibility of any Government who propose to make this change to have a complete and thorough inquiry, or otherwise a much criticised referendum, before the change is made.
As I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, seems to place the
290
main emphasis upon revenue, and other noble Lords who have spoken have said much the same thing, suggesting; that we should try one radio channel for advertising. If the main emphasis is placed on radio, can my noble friend Lord Bowles tell us whether anyone has made any calculation of the amount of revenue we are likely to get, even on an experimental basis? I have no idea what the revenue is from commercial television, but from what one reads in the newspapers it would seem that large sums of money are being made at the present time by all kinds of people. It would be interesting if my noble friend Lord Bowles could give us some indication of the amount of revenue which would be likely to be derived, either on radio or on television, if any change of this kind were made.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder that, wherever one goes in the world, everyone speaks of the B.B.C. as a great institution. One of the problems of democracy in the world to-day is the problem of communication. Ever since the radio came into villages and hamlets all over the world it has been held in the highest regard as a public service, and I hope very much that the Government will think carefully before they make a change from a public service to what some people call the "detergent democracy".
Of course, we all have our criticisms of the programmes of the B.B.C., but that is not what the debate is about. We may not like Till Death Us Do Part, or the old films which are shown on Sunday evenings. But this change in the revenue set-up would not change the programmes, and therefore I hope very much that my noble friend Lord Bowles will tell us that we shall continue to have the two media, with the commercial and the public service, and that we shall leave well alone.
8.10 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I think we have had an excellent debate, ranging all over the subject, and perhaps I might start by dealing with one or two of the more recent speakers. In answer to my noble friend Lord Granville of Eye, we have no idea at all what the revenue could possibly be. I certainly think it would be silly to make any guess. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, was obviously

291
against the advertising, but he went on to criticise the programmes. I want to point out, in answer to any general criticism of the whole line of the B.B.C. programmes, that the responsibility for programmes rests on the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and his distinguished colleagues on the Board of Governors. It is not for the Government to criticise or to defend the programmes. It is fundamental to the whole concept of broadcasting in this country that the public authorities responsible for broadcasting should be independent of the Government. But I am sure that the Corporation will study the noble Lord's criticisms with great care.
As almost every other noble Lord has said, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, for raising the subject of this debate to-day. We have all listened, I have particularly, with great interest to the views that he and other noble Lords have expressed. His qualifications are of course exceptional. As he reminded your Lordships, he was interested in revenue in the broadcasting services, and in various committees. The whole question of whether broadcasting services should be paid for out of revenue and by advertising included in the services has been studied over and over again during the past 45 years. In the years before the Second World War it was looked at by successive Committees of Inquiry, by successive Governments—they were Conservative Governments—and no doubt by successive Boards of Governors of the B.B.C. In the result, there was no commercial radio or television in this country until after the war.
Since then there have been two independent Committees of Inquiry. The first of them, the Beveridge Committee, which was appointed in 1949, of which my noble friend Lady Stocks was a very honoured member, advised by a majority of seven to four against broadcasting by advertising interests. The Beveridge Report led to wide-ranging argument, and to that argument the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, as I think he said in his speech, had much to contribute. I cannot of course go over the whole ground again this evening. But your Lordships will perhaps permit me to recall that the Conservative Government
292
in their White Paper on the Report (Cmd. 8550, of May, 1952), stated unequivocably that:
"The Government would be most unwilling to see any change in the policy of the B.B.C. themselves towards sponsoring or accepting advertisements".
This policy was that the Corporation should not admit sponsored programmes or accept advertisements. Noble Lords will recall that from its inception Independent Television has been expressly forbidden to carry sponsored programmes. It is, I think, common ground that sponsoring should never be allowed in any broadcasting service in this country.
The next independent review was that of the Pilkington Committee, which reported in 1962. That Committee warmly reaffirmed the view that the B.B.C. should not be financed out of advertising revenue. The Committee noted that the method of paying for broadcasting affects the character of the service of broadcasting, and concluded that only the licence fee system implies no commitment to any objective other than the provision of the best possible service of broadcasting. The Committee also rejected the view that the B.B.C. might safely accept some advertising revenue, on the ground that in time the Corporation would be driven to a greater and greater dependence on advertising revenue.
This is where I want to say to all noble Lords—and, I think even to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder—that I personally feel that these Committees have advised against even the thinnest end of the wedge. If your Lordships work it out for a moment, suppose a great number of people agree that Radio 1 could be used for a certain amount of advertising. All right. Suppose it does raise a little money. The time comes when the B.B.C. might want an increase in the licence fee. The Government would then very likely say, "But you have already started advertising; you must extend it"; and those noble Lords who want to preserve Radio 4 will find their case has gone because they let the door open a little; and really there is no stopping advertising once it has started. The Committee also observed that if the B.B.C. were to sell advertising time a fundmental change would take place in the character of the

293
competition between the two broadcasting organisations. It would become competition for the most desirable advertising time and in consequence, broadcasting would suffer. The Conservative Government of the day accepted the Committee's recommendation that the B.B.C. should continue to be financed by the licence fee system. There was little, if any, dissent from that decision.
The debate focused rather on the Committee's recommendation that there should be a fundamental change in the structure of Independent Television. This recommendation was rejected by the Government of the day, and in rejecting it they had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who told your Lordships in this House on July 18, 1962, that the Report's main recommendation was not practicable. That was only six years ago. His experience of the B.B.C. had, he said, taught him the aversion of a public corporation to the selling of advertisements. The noble Lord is of course perfectly free to come to another view, but I am sure he will not mind my noting that he has done so.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I have held the view since 1949 that some advertisements should be taken. I have not changed my mind in the last five years particularly.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I have quoted what the noble Lord said, and I remember the noble Lord saying that he changed his mind in 1949 with the Beveridge Report. I will quote again what he said. The Government of the day rejected the recommendation—
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: What recommendation?
LORD BOWLES: That a fundamental change should be made in the structure of Independent Television. This recommendation was rejected by the Government of the day, and in rejecting it they had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who told your Lordships' House in July, 1962, that the Reports' main recommendation was not practicable. His experience of the B.B.C. had, he said, taught him the aversion of a public corporation to the selling of advertisements. That was only six years ago.
294
Your Lordships will be aware of the outcome of the Government's review of broadcasting contained in the White Paper (Cmnd. 3169), of December, 1966. It announced the Government's intention that there should be no change for the present in the arrangement whereby the B.B.C. are financed through the licence fee system, and that an increase in the fee would be required in due course, though not before 1968. There seems to be a certain amount of readiness on the part of noble Lords in this House this evening to accept an increase in the fee. I have no information about that, but I am sure the Government will take notice of some kind of consensus in this House. The B.B.C. are on public record as having applied to my right honourable friend the Postmaster General (then Mr. Short) for an increase. Mr. Short made it perfectly clear that he was considering their application. As he said in another place, the Government would give Parliament ample notice of any proposed increase in the licence fee.
So much, my Lords, for what one might call the historic and constitutional background against which to set the noble Lord's Question. Before turning to some of the considerations it raises, we should. I think, recall what remarkable value listeners get for their licence money—and this has been brought out, I am glad to say, over and over again in this debate. We know that the figure is £5 for a combined set to-day. On the Continent licence fees range from nearly £6 a year to nearly £14. So the amount of licence fee in this country compares most favourably with the cost in other countries. For this amount, the B.B.C. presents hundreds of hours of radio programmes and well over a hundred hours of television every week.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? He said that it is on record that the B.B.C. have made an application for an increase in the fee. Have they ever in fact asked the Government if they may go into advertising?
LORD BOWLES: Not that I know of. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is quite right. The initiative must come from the B.B.C. and not from the Government. Lord Fraser of Lonsdale's Question rather

295
suggested that perhaps they might have dropped a hint and the B.B.C. might have made an approach. It is rather difficult to understand exactly what was behind part of his Question, and therefore I put that in as a possible explanation of his thinking on this matter. However, the noble Lord asks, in effect, whether Her Majesty's Government should let it be quietly known to the B.B.C. that if they took it into their minds to seek permission to broadcast commercial advertisements their plea would not fall on deaf ears. The B.B.C.'s Licence and agreement, granted in 1963, provides that the B.B.C. shall not broadcast commercial advertisements without first getting the permission of the Postmaster General. This provision leaves the initiative with the B.B.C. It is for the Corporation, if they think fit, to seek permission to broadcast advertisements.
The facts are the same as they were in December, 1966: that neither before December, 1966, nor, I can reveal since, have the B.B.C. taken this initiative. I cannot speak for the B.B.C., though we have heard this evening from several noble Lords who are connected in one way or another with the Corporation, but I think we can assume that before deciding to seek permission they would take it as their duty to weigh carefully the effect on the quality of their services if they were to broadcast advertisements.
The noble Lord, Lord Fraser, has argued that the performance of the B.B.C. has improved as a result of competition. Here again, I would look back to the last independent inquiry into broadcasting and draw the noble Lord's attention especially to one of its observations. It is sometimes said that the standards maintained by Independent Television show that television financed by advertising can be a very acceptable public service; and that being so, the B.B.C. could, without detriment, be financed by advertising. This argument seems to me to overlook an important consideration. As the Pilkington Committee observed, the effect would be to alter the nature of the competition between the two broadcasting organisations. The competition would increasingly become competition for the sale of advertising time. In consequence—this is how the argu-
296
ment runs—competition would come to be conducted only in terms of audience ratings. Both broadcasting organisations would come to concentrate on those programmes which were known to command the biggest audience. I understand from my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder that in America they have seven different channels and the Westerns are always running at the same time. Westerns are all equally popular and so there is no competition at all. They all put on Westerns at the same time.
In the result, the choice available to viewers would become more restricted. Rather than diversity in programming there would be sameness. This is the argument. This is what I was saying about advertisements. As I say, it is laid out in the Pilkington Report. To those who see the argument as more theoretical than real, the Committee's reply is that this is precisely what has happened in countries where competing broadcasting organisations are financed from advertising. Altogether, the Committee's conclusion is that, whatever the effect of the present kind of competition between the B.B.C. and Independent Television, competition of the kind advocated by the noble Lord and supported by other noble Lords this evening, would operate against the public interest in broadcasting.
Of course, many B.B.C. programmes aim to reach the maximum audience and indeed succeed in their aim. For instance, Radio 1 and Radio 2 have been referred to many times—the popular music programme and the Light Programme attract huge audiences. I expect that is why the noble Lord and his noble friend Lord Denham have suggested that they could carry advertisements without detriment to the B.B.C.'s programme generally. The opposing argument is, of course, that this is not a door that one can open only a little and no more. The Pilkington Committee and the majority of the Beveridge Committee concluded that once the B.B.C. admitted some advertising they would gradually be driven to increasing dependence on it.
There are, of course, wider considerations which would have to be weighed in considering the implications of introducing advertising into the B.B.C.'s services. Would competition by the B.B.C.

297
for advertising revenue threaten the continued viability of national or local newspapers? Would it threaten the continued existence of at least some of the independent television companies? On the other hand, would it be right to continue in effect to bar advertising from part of the broadcasting medium—a bar which certainly many in the world of advertising think should be removed? Is it better that the public should pay indirectly for all broadcasting—that is, through the price of the advertised goods they buy, rather than directly through licence fees?
I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lady Stocks point out that people who patronise Independent Television pay the licence as well as anybody else, as well as paying perhaps millions of pounds in the added cost of the goods that are advertised on television. Would it be in the country's best economic interest to stimulate consumer demand by opening up at the present time a more effective vehicle for advertising mass consumer goods? Whatever assessment one might make of the implications for broadcasting of the introduction of advertising into B.B.C. programmes, should we even so take a step which must tend to channel productive effort away from production for export into creating or increasing, and then satisfying, demands for consumer goods at home? This is a point emphasised by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his weekend speech. He does not want improvement based on home consumption, but improvement based on increased exports.
My Lords, I do not claim to have the answers to these difficult questions. I observe only that they are posed by the noble Lord's suggestion. The noble Lord suggests an unprejudiced inquiry. He may have in mind an inquiry such as those conducted since the war by Lord Beveridge and Lord Pilkington. The franchises granted to the B.B.C. and to the I.T.A. run until 1976. However, if precedent were followed, there would be set up in good time another such Committee as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, has mentioned.
The noble Lord complained that the B.B.C.'s external services do not, when referring to our export achievements, mention the names of the firms who have secured them. The B.B.C. are responsible for their programme policy, but my
298
understanding is that their overseas programmes achieve a considerable success in promoting exports by British firms. The B.B.C. reported that of 780 letters recently sent out by them to firms whose products the Corporation had advertised abroad, 131 replies said that they had had direct evidence of sales resulting, while another 222 said they thought the broad-casts had helped. I want to make a distinction between "plugging" and broadcasts about whether there has been a big order, for example, for engines in the United States which would help Rolls-Royce a little further.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, has referred to local radio. We have all heard of the plans of the G.L.C. and the Manchester Corporation to set up their own commercial local radio stations. There are several difficulties in this suggestion, but I cannot go into them all in a debate on the B.B.C. I am bound to recall that it is the Government's view that the duty to the public of genuinely local radio would prove incompatible with the policy of commercial companies. For the rest, the Government's policy, pronounced in December, 1966, is that there should be a limited experiment conducted by the B.B.C., to be financed so far as is possible from local sources. We shall wait and see how the experiment goes. Meanwhile, let us give the experiment a fair chance.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, talked about the evasion of licence fees, and asked whether enough had been done to defeat television licence evasion. I think, the facts are interesting. They are these. Last year the Wireless Telegraphy Act was passed. It made it possible for my right honourable friend the Postmaster General to enlist the help of television dealers, and provided for a sharp increase in the fines which the courts may impose on convicted offenders. The fine for a first offence has gone up from £10 to £50. I think I can say that the measures were welcomed in your Lordships' House, as in the country generally. Also, the measures already in use by the Post Office were intensified. I am glad to be able to say that evasion has been considerably reduced over the last 18 months. One thing I should make quite clear is that this success will not lead the Post Office to relax its efforts. On the contrary, no one should be in any doubt about the

299
determination of my right honourable friend to see that offenders no longer get their television on the backs of the overwhelming majority of honest viewers and listeners.
My noble friend Lord Strabolgi raised two questions. He asked first about the local radio experiment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Denham, had the same idea. The answer is that of the eight stations two have only just started, too soon really to assess results. Support has been overall, positively and substantially forthcoming. My noble friend also asked a question about the fourth channel. The Government said in the December, 1966, White Paper that it will not be allocated for three years at least, first, in the light of the economic situation, and secondly, in view of possible claims of the open university. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, and other noble Lords who have contributed so valuably to our discussion this evening, have done a useful service in our debate to-day. It can do nothing but good to have free and open discussion of these things. Meanwhile, the facts remain as the White Paper of December, 1966, recorded them.
Perhaps by way of conclusion I may say two things. First—and here I am sure that there can be no dissent—neither the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, nor his colleagues on the Board of Governors of the B.B.C., need any prompting towards considering where their duty lies. My second observation will, I believe, also command general agreement. The noble Lords, Lord Hill and Lord Aylestone, may well reflect as they think over what has been said here this afternoon, that our broadcasting services, con-
300
sidered as a whole, are regarded by informed opinion abroad as unrivalled anywhere in the world. This has been brought out by many noble Lords here to-day. If I may speak from my own experience, visitors from abroad regularly tell me that they find the standard of radio and television services in this country higher, and often much higher, than that prevailing elsewhere. And they find it an enjoyable feature of our broadcasting that the B.B.C.'s services do not contain advertisements. I understand this to be a typical reaction, and it is something that I should like to place on record.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he be kind enough to clarify one point which he made? Did he say that if the B.B.C. wished to make an application to use advertisements it is up to the Postmaster General alone to decide whether or not such advertisements are made? Does Parliament have no say in this? Does the Postmaster General have sufficient powers to give the "green light"?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am not perfectly certain. First of all, the B.B.C. would make the application to the Postmaster General—in this respect that is the Government. I feel quite certain that, without having at my disposal the necessary legal knowledge, possibly some legislation would be necessary to change the Charter, and even to change the Agreement which comes up for renewal in 1976. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Earl.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before nine o'clock.